1 CGHC010067852026 2026:CGHC:27481 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 485 of 2026 Satyanarayan Kolta, S/o Mangloo Kolta, aged about 70 years, R/o Village - Ansula, Police Station - Sankra, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, through The District Magistrate, Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 03/07/2026 1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.02.2026 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Sessions Case No.67/2011 whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under: Conviction Sentence U/s 306/34 IPC RI for 4 years and fine of Rs.200/-, in default SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.07.06 12:09:39 +0530 2 thereof, 2 months additional RI. 2. It is an admitted fact that co-accused, Prem Kumar @ Premlal and Enbati @ Ayanbati, were convicted vide judgment dated 04.12.2012 under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years and to pay a fine of 200/- each. As the applicant ₹ herein Satyanarayan had remained absconding, the trial against him was separated from that of the co-accused. 3. As per prosecution story, the deceased, Smt. Sumitra, was married to appellant, Premkumar, a resident of village Ansula, Police Station Pithora, on 23.03.2011, as per social customs. However, from the very first day of marriage, she did not experience any happiness. On the very first night of the wedding, her husband forcibly snatched her gold earrings and threw them away. He also broke her bangles and even forced her to consume three sex enhancement pills at once. Concerned about her health, her parents took her back to Bade Temri for medical treatment. However, 4–5 days later, her in-laws took her back to Ansula, under the pretext of performing religious rituals. There, she was subjected to chili smoke, had wood inserted into her ears, and was even sexually assaulted by her husband, who inserted a stick into her private parts, causing severe swelling. Her mother-in-law, Enbati falsely maligned her of having illicit relations and terminating a pregnancy. She repeatedly taunted her, saying, “You have had an abortion, you are still pregnant, tell me the name of the man you had relations with, I will get your sonography done.” This continuous harassment left the deceased terrified. Three days before her death, her in-laws came to take her back. 3 However, she was so frightened at the thought of returning to her marital home that, feeling mentally and physically tortured by her husband and mother-in-law, she consumed poison on 19.06.2011, leading to her death. Upon receiving information, Marg was registered. Subsequently, a case was registered at Sankara Police Station. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellants. 4. So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses. The statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 5. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.02.2026, the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He also submits that vide judgment dated 03.03.2025 passed in CRA no.1124/2012, sentence of co-accused Prem Kumar @ Premlal Kolta and Anbai @ Ayanbati Kolta was reduced to the period already undergone by them. The appellant herein also is an old aged person aged about 75 years. He already remained in jail for about 6 months 28. He has no criminal antecedents. The incident took place in June, 2011 and since then he is facing the lis. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence of the appellant may also be reduced to the period already undergone by him in the interest of justice. 4 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 9. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of Mahendra Nayak (PW-6) brother of the deceased, Safed Bai (PW-1) and mother of the deceased Uttara Bai (PW-2), establish the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for offence as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. 10.As regards the sentence, keeping in view the facts that the sentence of other co-accused was also reduced to the period already undergone by them i.e. 1 year and 9 months. In light of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1977) 3 SCC 287, and keeping in view the fact that the incident had taken place in June, 2011 about 15 years ago also considering that at present the appellant is aged about 75 years, he already remained in jail for about 6 months and 28 days, he has no criminal antecedents and he is facing the lis since June 2011. Considering all these facts, this Court opines that justice would be served if the appellant’s sentence is reduced to the period from R.I. for 4 years to RI for 8 months and for the above offence, his fine would be enhanced from Rs.200/- to Rs. 10,000/-. 11.Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 306/34 of IPC is maintained and the 5 sentence is reduced from 4 years to 8 months. However, the fine amount is enhanced from Rs.200/- to 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall liable to undergo 6 months of rigorous imprisonment. If any amount of fine was deposited, will be adjusted in Rs.10,000/-. 12.The appellant has already served 6 months and 28 days of jail sentence, this period be set off to the period of sentence as imposed upon him today by this Court. 13. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 14. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned. A copy of this judgment be also transmitted to the concerned Jail Superintendent where the appellant is serving his sentence, for information and necessary action. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Shubham