1 2025:CGHC:57596 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1038 of 2024 1 - Shatrughan Kosle S/o Shri Jhanglu Kosle Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Bahna Kadi, Police Station Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms.Pragya Shrivastava,GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Judgment on Board 26/11/2025 This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.05.2024 passed by the learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur District Raipur 2 (CG) in Sessions Trial No.264/2021 whereby the appellant has been found guilty for the commission of offence under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment for two months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant, Lakhan Yadav, lodged a report at Police Station Mandir Hasaud alleging, inter alia, that he resides at village Shivnath Beegha, Police Station Madanpur, District Aurangabad (Bihar) and has been working for the last 4–5 years at Vicky Hotel, Bahna Kadi, owned by one Prabhat Choudhary @ Guddu. According to the prosecution, a dispute arose when the said Prabhat Choudhary attempted to get certain land levelled, which was allegedly resisted by the present appellant. It is the case of the prosecution that on 26.12.2020, the owner of the hotel, namely Prabhat Choudhary, went went to his land, whereupon the present appellant is alleged to have assaulted him with an iron rod, causing blows on the head and chin with the intention to cause death. It is alleged that due to the said assault, the injured sustained grievous injuries and was found lying drenched in blood at the spot. 3. On the basis of the report lodged by the complainant, Inspector Rajendra Deewan (PW-12) registered Dehati Merg Intimation (Ex.P-11) and Dehati Nalisi (Ex.P-26). During the course of investigation, Crime No. 452/2020 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution further alleges that, 3 pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant, certain articles were seized. The dead body of the deceased was recovered and sent for post-mortem examination. The appellant was arrested and statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. After completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge- sheet before the learned Assistant Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed accordingly and registered as Sessions Trial No. 264/2021, which was assigned to the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 5. The Trial Court framed charges against the appellant for commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances, asserted his innocence and claimed false implication, though no defence witness was examined on his behalf. 6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses and exhibited several documents in support of its case. The prosecution relied upon the ocular testimony of witnesses, the medical evidence, recovery of articles, and the post-mortem report to establish that the appellant was the author of the fatal injuries and 4 that the act was committed with the requisite intention and knowledge attracting Section 302 IPC. 7. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court placed reliance on the prosecution witnesses and the recovery made during investigation. However, while discarding the charge under Section 302 IPC, the Trial Court ultimately came to the conclusion that the offence proved against the appellant fell under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, and accordingly convicted him vide judgment and order dated 17.05.2024, imposing the sentence as mentioned therein. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant has preferred the present appeal, assailing the findings on facts as well as on law, giving rise to the present proceedings. 9. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the appellant fairly submits that he does not press the appeal on merits and confines his challenge only to the quantum of sentence imposed upon the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant does not dispute the finding of guilt recorded by the learned Trial Court and seeks indulgence of this Court only with respect to reduction of sentence. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the incident occurred in the heat of passion and without premeditation; that the appellant has already undergone incarceration for more than three 5 years and five months; that he is a first-time offender and there is no material on record to show any criminal antecedents; and that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of ten years is unduly harsh and deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone. 11. Per Contra, Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposes the appeal and submits that the offence is serious in nature and the sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court does not call for interference. 12. This Court has considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the record. Since the appellant has expressly confined the challenge only to the question of sentence and has not questioned the conviction on merits, this Court refrains from re-appreciating the evidence and confines its scrutiny to the proportionality and appropriateness of the sentence imposed. 13. The appellant stands convicted under Section 304 Part-II IPC, which contemplates culpable homicide not amounting to murder committed without intention but with knowledge that the act was likely to cause death. The maximum punishment prescribed thereunder is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both. 14. The record indicates that the incident occurred in the course of a sudden quarrel and without premeditation. It is also borne out from the 6 record that the appellant has remained in custody for more than 3 years and five months There is nothing on record to indicate that the appellant has any criminal antecedents or that he is a habitual offender. 15. The principles governing sentencing require the Court to strike a balance between the gravity of the offence and the mitigating circumstances of the offender. Sentencing must be proportionate, just, and fair, and should neither be unduly lenient nor excessively harsh. 16. Having regard to the nature of the offence, the circumstances in which the incident occurred, the absence of premeditation, the period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant, and the fact that the appellant has accepted the conviction and confined his challenge only to the sentence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately served if the sentence of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment imposed upon the appellant is reduced to that under five years. 17. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part-II IPC, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence from ten years’ rigorous imprisonment to five years’ rigorous imprisonment. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code is hereby affirmed. However, the sentence imposed upon the appellant is modified and reduced from ten years’ rigorous imprisonment to five years’ rigorous imprisonment. 7 18. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. As the appellant is reported to be in jail, therefore no further order is required to be passed in respect of his arrest etc. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.01.23 11:39:39 +0530