1 2025:CGHC:5297 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 919 of 2021 Santosh Yadav S/o Jaylal Yadav Aged About 29 Years R/o Devrum, Police Station -Rajadevri, District -Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ---- Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House In Charge Police Station Rajadevri, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Suresh Tandon,Advocate. (Legal Aid) For State/Respondent : Mr. GL Uike, PL. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 29.01.2025. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.07.2021, passed in ST No.52/2020 by which learned Session Judge, Balodabazar, District -Balodabazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, convicted the 2 accused/appellant under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentenced him to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.5,000/-, with usual default clause. 2. The present appeal was filed in the year 2021. No one appeared on behalf of the appellant in pre-lunch session when the matter was called out for hearing, therefore, I requested for assistance from a Counsel of the High Court Legal Services Committee. Mr.Suresh Tandon, Advocate is nominated to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is this that on 01.10.2020 some dispute took place between the appellant-accused and his wife Chameli Bariha (deceased) with regard to taking loan from L & T Finance and in that process, appellant committed murder of his wife by pressing her neck. Based upon report lodged by complainant Ranjit Bariha (father of deceased), FIR was registered against the appellant and he has been arrested. 4. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and based upon which trial Court framed the charges against him, however, he denied the charges levelled against him and sought trial. 5. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 10 witnesses. Statement of accused appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all incriminating 3 evidence available against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. 6. After completion of trial, the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced appellant herein in the manner as described above. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that he is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of impugned judgment and is confining his argument to the quantum of sentence only. He submits that incident had taken place on 01.10.2020, there was no pre-meditation and on the spur of moment incident had taken place, appellant is in jail since 27.07.2021 and thereby he has already served more than three and a half year of jail sentence, he is not having any previous criminal antecedents, hence, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellant, would submit that looking to the nature of offence, leniency should not be shown to appellant herein. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment. 10. Though learned counsel for appellant has not challenged conviction of appellant and restricted his prayer only with regard 4 to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this Court deems it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment of the Court below. This Court has meticulously perused impugned judgment and evidence on record. 11. Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness, has observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellant herein and that being the position, this Court is the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any mistake in arriving at a conclusion that appellant is guilty for offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC. 12. As regards the quantum of sentence, considering that incident had taken place on 01.10.2020, there was no pre-meditation and on the spur of moment incident had taken place, appellant is in jail since 27.07.2021 and thereby he has already served more than three and a half year of jail sentence, he is not having any previous criminal antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that sentence imposed by trial Court upon the appellant (RI for 10 years) appears to be on higher side. So keeping in view all the circumstances, mentioned above, ends of justice will be served if the sentence imposed upon appellant is reduced from RI 10 years to RI 07 years. 5 13. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of appellant under Section 304 of the IPC, the sentence imposed upon him by trial Court is reduced from RI for 10 years to RI 07 years. However, fine amount imposed on appellant is remain intact. 14. The record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE J/-