1 CGHC010051062020 2026:CGHC:32076 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 96 of 2020 • State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Kartala, District - Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant. versus • Mohd. Seraj S/o Mohd. Hussain Rijvi Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Nonbirra, Police Station - Kartala, District - Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/State. : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Deputy Advocate General For Respondent : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate. (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas) Order on Board 27/07/2026 1. Today the matter is taken up for hearing on the question of sentence as this Court vide judgment dated 17-7-2026 has set aside the judgment of acquittal dated 16-1-2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Korba District Korba in Sessions Trial No. 70 of 2018 wherein the accused was acquitted from charges levelled against him under Section 306 of IPC. 2 2. Learned counsel for the respondent/accused would submit that the respondent/accused already remained incarceration for one year and nine months during trial. He would further submit that the trial remained pending from 18-7-2018 and this acquittal appeal is also remain pending before this Court since 6-1-2020. As such, the appellant suffered mental agony and tension due to pendency of the case before the learned trial Court and before this Court. He would further submit that father of the respondent/accused is not keeping good health and suffering from ailments, therefore, he has to visit various hospitals at Raipur and Korba also. As such, he would further submit that since the appellant remained incarceration for one year and nine months during pendency of the trial, he would pray for reducing the sentence for commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC to the period of already undergone by him by imposing the fine amount. 3. He would further submit that respondent/accused has no criminal antecedents, he was of only 25 years when the offence was committed, as such he has possibility of reformation and would pray for reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by him.. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ehsaan vs. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 arising out of SLP (Cri) No. 3407 of 2016, reported in 2026 INSC 720. He would further submit that in the light of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court also , sentence may be reduced to the period already gone by the accused.. 3 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposing the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the respondent/accused would submit that since this Court has convicted the respondent/accused for commission of offense punishable under Section 306 of the IPC as young girl has lost her life which is irreparable loss to her family, therefore, it cannot be compensated by way of imposing the fine amount. He would further submit that the offence committed by the respondent /accused is heinous which is not only against the victim but against the society at large , therefore, he shall be punished with imprisonment for maximum period prescribed by the statute under Section 306 of the IPC ie., upto ten years with fine also and would pray that no lenient view should be taken in favour of the respondent/accused and would pray for rejection of the reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by the respondent/accused. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the court below. 6. Taking into consideration of the fact that the appellant was aged about 25 years at the time of commission of offence and also taking into consideration that the appellant remained incarceration for one year and nine months during trial, and no further acquisition has been leveled against the respondent/accused during pendency of the trial or pendency of the appeal before this Court, this Court is of the view that the appellant deserves to be sentenced 4 for two years imprisonment wherein he is entitled to set off of one year and nine months of his incarceration period as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C or under Secrtion 468 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 7. 7. Accordingly, the respondent/accused is convicted for commission of offense punishable under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years subject to set off of the period already remained incarceration ie., one year and nine months. The respondent/accused is granted time upto 8-10-2026 to surrender before the concerned trial Court to serve out the remaining part of 3 months of jail sentence, awarded by this Court, failing which learned trial Court shall take necessary steps against the respondent/accused, for complying the order passed by this Court, in accordance with law. 8. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. 9. With the aforesaid modification of the sentence, the instant Acquittal Appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Raju RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2026.07.29 17:15:36 +0530