1 2025:CGHC:40458 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 94 of 2014  Vinod Gendre, S/o Dulichand Gendre, aged about 30 years, R/o village Risda, Thana and District Baloda Bazar (C.G.) . ... Appellant versus  State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Police Station – Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Anil Singh Rajput, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Afroj Khan, P.L. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment On Board 12/08/2025 1. The present appeal is directed against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.12.2013 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.78/2013, whereby and whereunder, the appellant stands convicted under Sections 307, 498-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 05 years with fine of Rs.500/- & 2 imprisonment for 01 years with fine of Rs.500/- respectively, plus default stipulation. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the case are that victim Hemin Bai (PW-5) and her husband Vinod Dengre (the appellant) had come to Siwni, Raipur in connection with their livelihood. During their stay, the appellant suspected her fidelity and on 28.01.2013, he tried to kill his wife Hemin Bai by pouring kerosene oil on her. Upon receiving the said information, on 30.01.2013, Motilal Banjare (PW-4), father of Hemin Bai, other family members, Bahadur Tandon (PW-3) of her village, owner Ram Khunte, Budharu Banjare, Hemlal Banjare (PW-9) all came to Raipur hospital and saw that Hemin Bai (PW- 5) had sustained grievous burn injuries. Further case of the prosecution is that when Motilal Banjare (PW-4) asked his daughter Hemin Bai (PW-5), she told that appellant had burnt her by pouring kerosene oil on her because he was suspecting her character. On the basis of a written report to this effect lodged by Motilal Banjare (PW-4), Police Station – Pandri recorded the FIR (Ex.P-7) for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and the matter was then investigated. 3. After completion of due investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, thereafter the matter was committed to the Court of 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) and after registration of Sessions Trial No. 78/2013, the appellant was put to trial for the offences 3 punishable under Sections 307 and 498-A of IPC. 4. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the appellant, examined as many as 11 witnesses. One defence witness namely Ramadhar Gendre (DW-1) was also examined by the appellant. Statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case and pleaded his innocence and false implication 5. The learned trial Court after hearing the counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in inaugural para of this judgment. Hence, this present appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He submits that victim Hemin Bai (PW-5) is wife of appellant and both of them had filed compromise application before the learned trial Court on 30.01.2013, and before this Court also they have filed an affidavit to the effect that presently she is living with the appellant peacefully and there is no any dispute between them. Learned counsel further submits that the incident took place in the year 2013, the instant appeal is pending since 2014 and the appellant remained in jail for more than one year (385 days), therefore, considering all the aforesaid facts, compromise application and affidavit, the jail sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by 4 him. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Baldev Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2011) 13 SCC 705 and upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Sanjay Bachad Vs. State of Chhattisgarh passed in CRA No. 223 of 2007. 7. Learned counsel for respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the appellant, however, the offence under Section 307 and 498-A of IPC is non-compoundable, thus the application for compromise and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. Today also victim Hemin Bai (PW-5) appeared before this Court and submits that the appellant is her husband and she is living with him peacefully and there is no any dispute between them and in support of her identity she has filed her Aadhar card. 10. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of Rekha Lahri (PW-1), Ajay Upadhyay (PW-2), Bahadur Tandon (PW-3), complainant Motilal Banjare (PW-4), victim Hemin Bai (PW-5), Seeta Bai (PW-6), Maalik Ram (PW-7), Satanand (PW-8) and Hemlal Banjare (PW-9), it is clear that on the date of incident, the appellant tried to kill her wife PW-5 by pouring kerosene oil on her and she sustained burn injuries. Dr. Devendra Nayak (PW-10) examined the victim PW-5 and found that victim 5 had sustained 49% burn injuries on her body and he had admitted the victim in the hospital which is evidence from bed head ticket (Ex.P/12-A) and he has also admitted his signature on MLC (Ex.D-2) of victim on ‘A to A’ part. So, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 307 of IPC, which is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record and it is hereby affirmed. 11. As regards sentence, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Baldev (supra) held as under :- “4. Section 376 is a non-compoundable offence. However, the fact that the incident is an old one, is a circumstance for invoking the proviso to Section 376(2)(g) and awarding a sentence of less than 10 years, which is ordinarily the minimum sentence under that provision, as we think that there are adequate and special reasons for doing so. 5. On the facts fo the case, considering that the incident happened in the year 1997 and that the parties have themselves entered into a compromise, we uphold the conviction of the appellant but we reduce the sentence to the period of sentence already undergone by in view of the proviso to Section 376(2)(g) which for adequate and special reasons permits imposition of a lesser sentence……” 12. The victim (PW-5) has field affidavit in support of appellant. 6 13. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baldev (supra) and taking into consideration the fact that the parties have themselves entered into compromise, the victim - wife has been living peacefully with her husband – the appellant for more than 10 years, they have three children and also considering the fact that the appellant is facing lis since 2013 and he has already remained in jail for more than one year, the conviction of the appellant is maintained, but the jail sentence awarded to the appellant for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine amount and its stipulation imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein above. 15. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 16. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2025.08.14 18:12:42 +0530 7