1 2025:CGHC:46644 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1697 of 2024 Badan Singh S/o Late Raghunath Singh Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Rokda, Dhodhabahara, Police Station Kelhari, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kelhari, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh. -----Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Chandra Kumar, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu JUDGMENT ON BOARD 11.09.2025 1. This appeal is filed under Section 415 (3) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 challenging the legality and sustainability of impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.07.2024, in Sessions Trial No. 28 of 2022, whereby learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Koriya convicted appellant for offence under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.22 10:54:44 +0530 2 fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 month rigorous imprisonment and for offence U/s. 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 month rigorous imprisonment with a direction to run both the sentences concurrently. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of the appeal are that on 16.01.2022 at about 2.00 PM, Jagbandhan Singh went to village Dhondabahara along with Jagmohan Singh to meet Patwari with land documents but he did not return thereafter. On 21/01/2022, his wife Rajni Devi informed her father-in-law, Jabar Singh, who came from Tipka Pani Ashram to village Rokda and searched for Jagbandhan. On 22/01/2022 at 9 AM, dead body of Jagbandhan Singh was found lying in Dengra Bahra Nala, Rokda Ghogha Bahra forest, with his bicycle nearby. Based on the information, a mourge was registered by the concerned police station U/s. 174 of Cr.P.C. vide Ex.P-35 and matter was taken into investigation. 3. Inquest was conducted and panchanama was prepared at the scene, dead body of deceased Jagbandhan was sent for postmortem examination to Government Hospital Kelhari vide Ex.P-36. The post- mortem report (Ex.P-29) was received on 29/01/2022 showing death of deceased due to underlying injuries. The doctor who conducted postmortem, opined that death of Janbandhan may be homicidal in nature. Based on this, FIR was registered against unknown person for offence U/s. 302 of I.P.C.. 3 4. During the course of investigation, it was found that Jagbandhan Singh and Jagmohan Singh had come to house of Lalli Singh in village Dhondhabahara to meet the Patwari. After that Jagbandhan was near house of Nandlal Singh in Padhara. From house of Nandlal he went to house of Badan Singh. Badan Singh showed his land and brought Jagbandhan to his house, where Jagbandhan abused him saying that he had shown the wrong land. Angered by this, Badan Singh hit Jagbandhan on his head and chest with a stick due to which he fell unconscious on the ground. Then Badan Singh opened the clothes of Jagbandhan, sprinkled water on him and found that he was dead. Later, son of Badan Singh namely Sitaram dragged the body, kept it in a corner of the shed at their home and on next day, Badan Singh, his son Arjun Singh and Sitaram took the dead body to Dhangra Bandhava drain and left it there. Memorandum statement of accused persons were recorded vide Ex.P-1 to P-3 and based on their memorandum statements, seizure were made vide Ex.P-4 to Ex.P-6. Accused persons were arrested vide Ex.P-7 to Ex.P-9. Statement of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against appellant and two other accused persons. 5. Learned trial Court framed charges under Section 450, 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant denied the charges. During course of trial, prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses namely Jagmohan Singh (P.W.-1), Rajani Devi (P.W.-2), Jagmohan Singh (P.W.-3), Mangal Singh (P.W.-4), Pawan Singh (P.W.-5), Uday Bhan Singh (P.W.-6), Balram Singh (P.W.-7), Suraj Prasad Kispotta (P.W.-8), 4 Lallu Singh (P.W.-9), Nandlal Singh (P.W.-10), Aman Singh (P.W.-11), Shankar Singh (P.W.-12), Deepak Minj (P.W.-13), Ramesh Yadav (P.W.-14), Dr. Mansoor Ala (P.W.-15), Ramnath Paikara (P.W.-16), Pradeep Sahu (P.W.-17) and Tejnath Singh (P.W.-18). Prosecution exhibited 44 documents. Statement of appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. No witness was examined in defence. After conclusion of trial, learned trial Court convicted appellant for commission of offences and sentenced him as mentioned here-in-above. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submits that the appellant is a senior citizen, currently about 75 years of age, and is suffering from various old age-related ailments. He contends that in view of his advanced age and deteriorating health condition, appellant does not wish to press the present appeal on merits. Instead, he seeks to confine his submissions solely to the quantum of sentence awarded to him. It is further submitted that the appellant has already undergone a period of more than two years and nine months of incarceration pursuant to the impugned judgment. He has no prior criminal antecedent and has maintained good conduct during his custody. In light of these circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the sentence imposed upon appellant may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him, in the interest of justice. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and submits that appellant has rightly been convicted and sentenced, however, he could not dispute the 5 submission of learned counsel for appellant that appellant is an old man and he has no criminal antecedents. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of trial Court. 9. Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that appellant has been convicted for the offences under Section 304 Part II and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a maximum term of five years. However, there is no minimum punishment prescribed for the offences as above, under the IPC. The record further discloses that appellant remained in custody from 30.01.2022 to 26.07.2024, and thereafter from the date of the judgment, i.e., 31.07.2024 to 13.11.2024. Accordingly, he has undergone a total period of incarceration of more than two years and nine months. He is currently 75 years of age, and as submitted by learned counsel appearing on his behalf, he is presently suffering from multiple age-related ailments. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that appellant has no prior criminal antecedents and has maintained good conduct during his period of custody. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the appellant’s advanced age, health condition, duration of incarceration already undergone, absence of any previous criminal record, and his overall conduct, this Court is of the considered opinion that, ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon appellant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6 11. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the appellant under Section 304-II & 201 of IPC, he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. Sentence of fine is, however, maintained along with its default clause. Appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds stands discharged. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram