1 2025:CGHC:46987 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1799 of 2025 Dinesh Mahto @ Kalu S/o Kripashankar Mahto Aged About 55 Years R/o Village And Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Vaishali (Bihar) Presently Residing At Near Chirkuti Mandir, Dhamani, Police Station Chakarbhata, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Chakarbhata, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh -----Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu JUDGMENT ON BOARD 12.09.2025 1. This appeal is filed under Section 415 (2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 challenging the legality and sustainability of impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.05.2025, in Sessions Trial No. 239 of 2021, whereby learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur convicted appellant for offence under Section 304-II of the Indian BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.22 11:01:19 +0530 2 Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months additional rigorous imprisonment and for offence U/s. 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment with a direction to run both the sentences concurrently. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of the appeal are that on 11/02/2021 at 16:50 hrs, Himkesh Mandle reported to Chakarbhatha police that while he was going to Dhamni Khar, he discovered the dead body of an unidentified woman covered with a leaf. After sometime, police arrived and identified deceased as Savitri Bai, who was living near Rikuti temple since last 9-10 months. Based on the information, mourge was registered vide Ex.P-15. Notices were issued to witnesses for identification of dead body of deceased vide Ex.P-16. Inquest was conducted in presence of witnesses vide Ex.P-17. Dead body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination to Community Health Center, Bilha vide Exh. P-19. During investigation, spot map was prepare vide Ex.P-20. Dead body of deceased was identified by her brother Sukhlal Dongare vide Ex.P-3. During mourge enquiry, the hut situated near Chirkuti temple was searched and upon search Adhar Card and Ration Card of deceased Savitri Bai and appellant Dinesh Mahato was found. Postmortem report vide Ex.P-22 was received, in which cause of death was due to asphyxia and internal bleeding due to ante-mortem head and leg injuries and nature of death was opined to be homicidal in nature. 3 3. Upon morgue enquiry it was found that deceased had been murdered by unknown person. Accordingly, an offence U/s. 302, 201 of I.P.C. was registered against unknown person and matter was investigated. During investigation, appellant was interrogated, his memorandum statement vide Ex.P-7 was recorded in which he admitted murder of his wife, Savitri Bai. He was subsequently taken into custody vide Ex.P-11. Statement of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against appellant and another accused, before the Court of competent jurisdiction. 4. Learned trial Court framed charges under Section 302, 34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant denied the charges. During the course of trial, prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses namely Asha Bai (P.W.-1), Jogender (P.W.-2), Ishwar Yadav (P.W.-3), Rajesh Gupta (P.W.-4), Kaushalendra Sarathi (P.W.-5), Sukhlal Dongare (P.W.-6), Manish Sharma (P.W.-7), Rahul Kumar Mahato (P.W.-8), Mantram Pal (P.W.-9), Asha Sahu (P.W.-10), Chiranjiv Rathore (P.W.- 11), Hinklesh Mandale (P.W.-12), Dr. Pankaj Sahu (P.W.-13), Parag Mahilane (P.W.-14) and Sukhnandan Patel (P.W.-15). Prosecution exhibited 28 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. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submits that the appellant is a senior citizen, currently about 60 years of age, as such, 4 he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument to the sentence part only. It is further submitted that the appellant is in custody from 06.06.2021 till today and thereby he has undergone more than four years and three months of incarceration pursuant to the impugned judgment. He is facing criminal proceedings since last about four years. 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, considering his age and health condition. 6. 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 submission of learned counsel for appellant that appellant is an old man and he has no criminal antecedents. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of trial Court. 8. 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 10 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 06.06.2021 till today. Accordingly, he has undergone a total period of incarceration of more than 4 years and 3 months. He is 5 currently above 60 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. 9. 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. 10. 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 in jail. He be released from jail forthwith in case he is not required in any other offence. 11. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court and copy of judgment to the concerned Jail Superintendent forthwith for information and necessary action. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram