1 2025:CGHC:6690 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 652 of 2024 1 - Pappu Ram S/o Shri Rang Lal Aged About 25 Years R/o Village- Morga Pandopaara, Police Station- Podi, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station In Charge, Police Station- Podi, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. K. Rohan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 05/02/2025 1. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is heard fi- nally at motion stage. 2. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and or- 2 der of sentence dated 06.11.2023 passed by 1st Additional Ses- sions Judge, Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.), in Session Trial No. 32/2022, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Conviction Sentence U/s 304 of IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of fine, additional R.I. for 2 years. U/s 201 of IPC R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case leading to the disposal of this appeal are that on 20.12.2021 ward boy Shivkumar Singh of District Hospital Baikunthpur has presented a memo (Ex. P/18) written by Dr. Subhashish Karan stating that deceased Sushma was admitted in the District Hospital Baikunthpur with the complain that she has received injuries due to fall and during the treatment she died on 20.12.2021. The police has registered the merg intimation upon the aforesaid memo bearing no. 0/21(Ex. P/19). The place of incident comes under Police Station- Podi therefore, the police informed about the merg intimation in P.S. Podi and registered merg intimation no. 58/21 (Ex. P/22). 4. So as to prove the complicity of the accused/appellant in the crime in question, prosecution has examined as many as 22 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.PC was also recorded in which he pleaded his innocence and false 3 implication in the case. No Defence has been examined in support of its case. 5. After hearing the parties and going through the material available on record including the evidence of the witnesses, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.) has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as described in paragraph No. 2 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case under Section 304 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. He further submits that as there was no intention on the part of the accused/appellant to cause death of the victim, the offence under Section 304 IPC is not made out. Alternatively, counsel for the accused/appellant submits that if the conviction part of the judgment impugned is not going to be interfered with, keeping in mind the fact that the accused/appellant has already remained behind the bars since 23.12.2021, the sentence imposed on him may be reduced to the period already undergone. 7. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the State supports the judgment impugned and submits that taking into consideration the statements of the mother of deceased (PW-2), father of the deceased (PW-3), and Dr. A.K. Singh (PW-11) which gets corroboration from the testimony of other independent witnesses, the findings recorded by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, 4 Manendragarh, District- Koriya holding the accused/appellant guilty under Section 304 IPC and Section 201 of IPC being based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record are fully justified and do not call for any interference in this appeal. 8. Heard counsel for the parties at length and went through the evidence on record with utmost care and caution. 9. PW-02/ mother of the deceased has deposed in her statement that the accused/appellant is her son-in-law. Before the date of incident, her daughter/deceased has told her that her son-in-law used to commit marpit with her daughter (deceased). On the date of incident, brother of her son-in-law called her and told that her son-in-law has committed marpit with her daughter (deceased) upon which she went to her daughter’s house to see her where the family members told that her daughter (deceased) has been admitted in the hospital. When she reached the hospital she found that her daughter is dead and her nose and mouth was bleeding and she received injury on her neck. In her cross-examination, she has deposed that around 6 years ago her daughter was married to her son-in-law and she has a son who is 5 months old. She further deposed that her son-in-law told her in hospital that her daughter (deceased) has received injuries because she fell from stairs. She again deposed that her son-in law’s house does not have stairs. 10. PW-03/ father of deceased, has deposed in his examination-in- chief that the accused/appellant is his son-in-law. He further 5 deposed that brother of his son-in-law called her daughter-in-law and told that his son-in-law has committed marpit with her daughter (deceased) and she is admitted in hospital. Next day he along with her wife (PW-02) went to hospital to see his daughter (deceased) where he found that his daughter is dead and and her nose and mouth was bleeding and she received injury on her neck. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that around 6 years ago his daughter was married to his son-in-law and she has a son who is 5 months old. He further deposed that his son-in-law told him in hospital that his daughter (deceased) has received injuries because she fell from stairs. He again deposed that his son-in law’s house does not have stairs. 11. PW-04/ sister of deceased has deposed in her examination-in- chief that the accused/appellant is her brother-in-law (जीजा). She further deposed that at around 8 pm her mother (PW-02) called her and told that her brother-in-law (जीजा) has committed marpit with her sister and she is admitted in the hospital. Next day she along with her parents (PW-02 and PW-03) went to see her sister in the hospital where she found that her sister is dead and and her nose and mouth was bleeding and she received injury on her neck. In her cross-examination, she has deposed that around 6 years ago his sister was married to his brother-in-law (जीजा) and she has a son who is 5 months old. She further deposed that her brother-in-law (जीजा) told her in hospital that her sister (deceased) has received injuries because she fell from stairs. She again 6 deposed that her brother-in-law’s (जीजा) house does not have stairs. 12. PW-11/ Dr. A. K. Singh who medically examined the deceased and gave his report (Ex. P/3-A) has stated that a dead body of average built female lying down. Both eyes closed, mouth closed, head tilted in left side, whitish dry foam in right and left nostrils, rigor mortis in both upper and lower limbs of both legs, nails of hand were blue. He noted the injuries as follows- contusion present on right side frontal region extended to right ear size 12.5 cm x 8 .5 cm which was bluish red and was of irregular shape, L.W. present in right pinna of 1cm x ½ cm which was muscle deep and irregular in shape and was redish colour, abrasion present on left side of upper part of face (close to ear) of size 2.5 cm x 1 cm, skin deep, redish colour, irregular shape, dry clotted blood, abrasion present of upper part right side of chest of size 1.5 cm x 1 cm and right shoulder (back side) of size 1.5 cm x 1 cm both skin deep, irregular shape, redish colour, dry blood, abrassion over left knee joint of 2 cm x 1.5 cm and over right ankle below laternal malioulus of size 1.5 cm x 1 cm, skin deep, irregular shape, redish colour, dry clotted blood. He gave his opinion that all injuries mentioned are ante-mortem and may be caused by hard and blunt object and further mentioned that head injury are dangerous for her life. 13. Thus, from the evidence of PW-02, PW-03, PW-04 and from the report (Ex. P/3-A) doctor (PW-11) it is clear that the 7 accused/appellant has committed marpit with the deceased, as a result of which she died. Medical evidence shows that the deceased received injuries over her head, chest, and other parts of body. According to the statement of Dr. A.K. Singh, the injuries sustained by the deceased are ante-mortem and are serious injuries. The result of death may be due to the injuries sustained by the deceased. 14. Thus taking a cumulative note of the medical evidence collected by the prosecution; looking to the nature of the injuries, motive for the crime, the part of the body where the injury has been inflicted, keeping in mind the medical report (Ex.P/3-A), this Court has no hesitation to hold that the findings recorded by the trial Court convicting the accused/appellant under Section 304 IPC and Section 201 of IPC are based on due appreciation of the evidence on record and deserve to be and are hereby maintained. 15. As regards sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the fact that the appellant/accused suddenly committed marpit with her wife (deceased) because he has a doubt on her character and there was no preparation or plan to commit murder of the deceased, further the accused/ appellant is in jail since 23.12.2021 and he has completed 3 years and 1 month of jail awarded by the trial court. The sentence of 10 years imposed by the trial Court appears to excessively on the higher side and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on him is 8 reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, fine imposed by trial Court is maintained. 16. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. 17. The appellant is in jail, therefore, he may be released from the jail if not needed in any other case. 18. 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 Madhurima