1 2025:CGHC:60234 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 952 of 2024 1 - Anira @ Asnis Tirkey W/o Basil Tirkey, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Do- daka, Thilai, P.S. Lemru, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Lemru District Korba Chhattis- garh. ---- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Mirza Kaisher Beg, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 11/12/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard 6nally. 2. This criminal appeal has been 6led under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.05.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Korba District Korba, (C.G.), in Session Case No. 16/2022, whereby the appellant have been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Convicted under Section Sentenced to 304 Part II RI for 5 years and 6ne of Rs. 1000/- and, in default of payment of 6ne, additional R.I. for Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.12.16 18:56:42 +0530 2 six months 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the informant, Sanso alias Sanjho Bai, reported on 30/11/2021 at Police Station Lemru that her daughter Anira alias Asnis Bai Uraon and son-in-law Basil Tirki had been residing in her house for the last seven to eight years, earning and maintaining themselves separately. It was stated that after consuming haria (country liquor), the daughter and son-in-law used to frequently quarrel and assault each other over trivial matters. It was further reported that on 29/11/2021, Sanso alias Sanjho Bai, along with Dhaniram and Negiram, residents of village Barpali, and her son-in-law Basil Tirki, together consumed haria. Thereafter, Sanso alias Sanjho Bai went to sleep in her room, while her daughter Anira alias Asnis, son-in-law Basil Tirki, Dhaniram, Negiram, and a Pahadi Korwa person went to another room. Subsequently, over the issue of serving food, Basil Tirki abused her daughter Anira alias Asnis and assaulted her by pressing her neck. In response, her daughter picked up a mahua wooden stick and struck Basil Tirki on his face and head. At that time, Negiram and Dhaniram, who were present there, intervened and thereafter returned to their respective homes. The daughter and son-in-law then went to sleep in their room. In the morning at about 4:00 a.m., the informant was informed by her daughter that Basil Tirki had died. Upon receipt of the said information, a Dehati Merg intimation was registered at the spot. In the presence of witnesses, a panchnama of the dead body of deceased Basil Tirki was prepared at the place of occurrence. The dead body was sent to PHC Korba along with a post-mortem requisition, where the post-mortem examination was conducted by the medical oDcer. Statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version. Upon interrogation of the 3 accused, a memorandum statement was prepared, and pursuant to the said memorandum, one stick was seized at her instance. The seized stick was sent to the doctor for query, and the query report was obtained. Blood-stained and plain soil were seized from the spot and seizure memos were prepared. A spot map was also prepared. The Dehati Merg intimation initially registered at zero was subsequently numbered at Police Station Lemru, and thereafter, a First Information Report was registered against the accused for the oEence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, the appellant have been arrested. The charge-sheet was 6led for the aforesaid oEences against the appellant / accused before the competent Court against the appellant. 4. The learned earned Sessions Judge, Korba District Korba, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 03.05.2024, convicted the appellant for the oEences punishable under Sections 304 Part -II of the IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the judgment of the trial Court is bad in law as well as on facts. The learned trial Court ought not to have convicted and sentenced the appellant and ought to have given the bene6t of doubt since the evidence submitted by the prosecution is very shaky and unbelievable. The Court below failed to appreciate the evidence and documents available on record. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the complainant. Hence, this appeal deserves to be allowed. 6. Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellant argued that if the Court 6nds that the alleged incident has been committed by the appellant, then 4 considering the fact that incident in question took place as back as in the year 2021 and now almost more than 5 years have been lapsed; during these years, the appellant must have suEered tremendous mental trauma and anguish of trial; she was in custody from 30.11.2021 to 03.5.2024 and she was in jail since 03.05.2024, she has no any previous criminal antecedents; presently the appellant is aged about 33 years, learned counsel only emphasized that sentence may be modi6ed as the appellant has already undergone 4 years and 10 days of jail sentence awarded by the trial Court in Session Case No. 16/2022. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by them may be suDce to meet the ends of justice. 7. Learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State, submits that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. Upon re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, it is evident that the incident occurred in the course of a sudden quarrel between the deceased and the appellant after consumption of liquor. The prosecution witnesses, particularly the informant and the intervening witnesses, have consistently stated that the deceased 6rst assaulted the appellant by abusing her and pressing her neck, whereafter the appellant, in a 6t of anger, picked up a wooden stick and inGicted blows on the face and head of the deceased. The medical evidence duly corroborates the prosecution case and establishes that the injuries sustained by the deceased were suDcient to cause his death. 10.The contention of learned counsel for the appellant regarding material 5 contradictions and omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses does not inspire con6dence. Minor discrepancies, which are natural with the passage of time, do not go to the root of the matter so as to discredit the prosecution case in its entirety. The core version of the incident has remained intact and is duly supported by medical and seizure evidence. Thus, the 6nding of guilt recorded by the learned Sessions Judge does not suEer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. 11.At the same time, the learned trial Court has already taken a lenient view by convicting the appellant under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC instead of Section 302 IPC, considering the nature of the incident, absence of premeditation, and the fact that the occurrence arose out of a sudden quarrel in a domestic setting. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC is hereby aDrmed and maintained. 12. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, it is not in dispute that the incident occurred in the year 2021 and the appellant has remained in custody from 30.11.2021 to 03.05.2024 during trial and thereafter since 03.05.2024 pursuant to the judgment of conviction. It is also not disputed that the appellant has no previous criminal antecedents and is a woman aged about 33 years. Considering the totality of the circumstances, including the period already undergone by the appellant in custody, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is suitably modi6ed. 13.Consequently, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. While the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code is maintained, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 6ve years is modi6ed to the period already undergone by the appellant i.e. 4 years and 6 10 days. The sentence of 6ne of Rs.1,000/-, as imposed by the learned trial Court, is maintained. If the appellant has already deposited the 6ne amount, no further orders are required; otherwise, the same shall be deposited forthwith. 14. The appellant be released from custody forthwith, if not required in any other case. 15. The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein- above. 16. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti