1 2025:CGHC:12309 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 455 of 2008 1 – Heeramani, son of Ramo Prasad Kashyap, aged about 35 years, R/o village Salkhan, P.S. Sheorinarayan, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh P.S. Sheorinarayan, District Janjgir Champa, (C.G.) ... Respondent For the appellant : Mr. Gurudeo I. Sharan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. H.S.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 12/03/2025 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been preferred by appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.04.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No. 148 A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO 2 of 2007 by the learned Sessions Judge Janjgir Champa, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: u/s 314 IPC read with section 34 IPC : RI for 5 years and fine amount of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 1 year 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that co-accused Yadlal Kashyap used to visit the house of deceased and developed illicit relations with her, as a result of which, she became pregnant. The appellant and co- accused Yadlal Kashyap took the deceased to the clinic of one Dr. N.R. Sarkar where her pregnancy was aborted and thereafter when her condition became serious, she was brought to the CIMS, Bilaspur where she died during the course of treatment. Thereafter, the merg intimation was given by the ward boy of the hospital and the police after recording the merg statement, filed FIR against the appellant and others. After completing the investigation and complying with other procedural requirements, the charge sheet was filed. It is stated that two other accused are still absconding. 3. The prosecution has in all examined 13 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents to prove its case. The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein he pleaded innocence and false implication. After conclusion of trial and considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on record, learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. 3 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant Heeramani submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He also submits that out of the maximum jail sentence of 5 years awarded to him u/s 314/34 IPC, he had already remained in jail for about 7 months. He submits that the incident took place in 2006 and the FIR was registered against him on 06.01.2007 and since then the appellant is facing the lis and this appeal is pending since 2008 and now he is aged about 53 years. He further submits that the appellant is a poor agriculturist and there are no criminal antecedents shown against him. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence of the appellant under section 314/34 IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by him in the interest of justice. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 7. Having gone through the material available on record and the court statements of P.W.1 Motelal Kashyap (father of deceased), P.W.2 Usha (elder sister of the deceased), P.W.3 Dhaneshwar, P.W.4 Sadhmati and P.W.5 Chhotelal Kashyap who established that the present appellant knowing that the victim was pregnant, took her to Dr.S.N. Sarkar for abortion, this Court does not see any illegality in the 4 findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellants. 08. As regards the sentence of Appellant looking to the nature of allegations levelled against him and further considering the fact that the incident had taken place in 2006 about 19 years ago and the maximum jail sentence awarded to him is RI for 5 years u/s 314/34 IPC, out of which, as stated by learned counsel he had already remained in jail for about 7 months and is facing the lis since 2007 and further considering the fact that no criminal antecedents are reported against him, in the interest of justice and in the considered opinion of this Court, instead of again sending him to jail, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence of appellant Heeramani from 5 years RI to the period already undergone by him i.e. 7 months for the offence punishable under Section 314/34 IPC. However, the fine amount imposed against him shall remain intact. It is ordered accordingly. 09. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 10. Appellant Heeramani is on bail. He need not again surrender in this case. However, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC. 5 11. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary action. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao