1 CGHC010137472019 2026:CGHC:35706 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 689 of 2019 • Mohammad Ismail S/o Ameer Hussain Aged About 26 Years R/o Baikunth Dham, Santoshi Para, Hudko, Quarter No. 213, Camp-2, Bhilai, Police Station-Chhawni, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Chhawani, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shudhanshu Singh, Advocate For State : Ms. Swati R. Gupta, Panel Lawyer For Objector : Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 12.08.2026 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 being aggrieved with the judgment dated 12.04.2019 passed by the learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 10/2017 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 326 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 5 years to the MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2026.08.18 10:43:22 +0530 2 appellant. 2. The record of the case further demonstrates that during pendency of the case, the appellant remained in incarceration from 04.11.2016 to 13.01.2017 i.e. 2 months and 10 days, and after judgment, this Court has granted bail to the appellant on 06.11.2019, as such, the appellant remained in incarceration for about 9 months and 11 days. 3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant was charge-sheeted for assaulting his wife with knife and also causing death of child in womb which is homicidal murder. Further prosecution case is that on 24.09.2016, when complainant was preparing meal, at that time the appellant who was also chopping vegetables has asked the complainant to go her sister’s house at village Khandwa (M.P.), which was refused by her, therefore, on refusal, the appellant has assaulted the victim with hands, fists and also by knife caused injury as a result of which the complainant was admitted in the Hospital, Bhilai from where she was referred to Medical College, Raipur for further medical treatment. Accordingly, the complainant lodged a written complaint (Ex. P/6) on 10.10.2016 before the Police Station Chhawni, District - Durg (C.G.). On the basis of complaint, a Dehati Nalishi was prepared on 17.10.2016 (Ex. P/4) at Mekahara Hospital Raipur. On the basis of Dehati Nalishi, an FIR bearing Crime No. 597/2016 (Ex. P/17) was registered before the Police Station Chhawni, District - Durg (C.G.). 4. The prosecution after usual investigation and collection of material, has submitted charge-sheet for commission of offence under Sections 324 and 316 of Cr.P.C. The prosecution examined the 3 witnesses namely Mohammad Shadab (PW-1), Sheikh Afsar (PW- 2), Taslim Bee (PW-3), Aabida Khan (PW-4), Rasid Khan (PW-5), Sayra (PW-6), Sunny Paswan (PW-7), Dr. Sheetal Yadav (PW-8), Dr. Kirti Kaura (PW-9), Tal Singh (PW-10), Mansha Ram Dhruw (PW-11), Baliram Bisan (PW-12), Sameer Khan (PW-13), Dr. Shivnarayan Manjhi, Medical Officer (PW-14), Narendra Kumar Kurre (PW-15), Dr. Santosh Sonkar (PW-16) and exhibited documents from Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/21. The accused pleads no guilty and has taken plea of false implication.. 5. Learned Trial Court on appreciation of evidence, particularly, the statement of the victim and considering the medical opinion of the doctor has convicted the appellant for the offence as detailed above. Being aggrieved with the order of conviction, the appellant has preferred this appeal before this Court and this Court has released the appellant on bail vide order dated 06.11.2019. 6. During pendency of the appeal, an application under Section 320 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was filed for compromise on 14.02.2023 contending that appellant and the complainant have already settled their dispute. On the said application, this Court has issued notice to the complainant, in pursuance of that, the complainant has submitted an affidavit dated 29.07.2026 that she has no objection for compromising the matter as they are living separately and divorce has been taken place and thereafter, they are living peacefully. It has also been contended that the complainant has already solemnized marriage with another person after divorce with the appellant. 7. Thereafter, the complainant appeared before this Court through 4 video conferencing and thereafter she again appeared with her counsel before this Court on 29.07.2026 and reiterated the stand that she is ready for compromise subject to fulfillment of certain conditions i.e. return of all the Stree Dhan and the appellant will not disturb her subsequent matrimonial life as she has already solemnized marriage with another person during the pendency of the appeal. Thereafter, the matter is taken up for hearing today. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in pursuance of compromise arrived at between the parties, the appellant has already returned all Stree Dhan to the sister of the complainant and also stated that he will not disturb the matrimonial life of the complainant. The said submissions were duly supported by an affidavit of appellant filed in support of application for taking documents on record. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant would submit that since the Stree Dhan has already been returned and the appellant has assured before this Court that he will not interfere in her matrimonial life, she has no objection for compromise and for reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 11. From perusal of the record, it is clear that the parties have already settled their dispute and the appellant already remained in incarceration for 9 months the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ehsaan vs. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi reported 5 in 2026 INSC 720 has applied the theory of reformatory while reducing the sentence in following manner: 6.4 When a sentence is imposed on an offender, it is done so with tri fold purpose i.e. punitive, deterrent and protective. The overall objective is to rid the society of criminal proclivity. The same is done by ensuring that the sentence imposed is proportional to the offence or in other words not overly influenced by the possibility of reformation and instead, striking a judicious balance between the interest of the victim, society and the accused, after following the due process of law. We have considered a number of other judgments also inter-alia Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar12; Navas v. State of Kerala13; Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N14; and Parsuram v. State of M.P.15. The following aspects reveal themselves when viewed from the lens of imposition of sentence. It must ;- (a) Be in accordance with the nature and gravity of the crime; (b) Adequately protect the interest of the society; (c) Take into account the deterrent purpose of punishment; (d) Consider the motive behind the crime, if any; (e) Give due weight to the conduct of the accused; (f) Examine whether the crime in question was pre-meditated or not; (g) Keep in view the age of the accused and whether he has engaged in any similar offence in past for which he has been duly convicted; Account for the number of victims of the offence; (i) Not consider the religion, race, caste or creed of the offender as a factor; (j) Consider the possibility of reformation of the accused. It is the duty of the State to establish that the same does not exist; and (k) The abuse of trust or misuse of personal relationship, if any The facets identified by us above are illustrative and not exhaustive. A holistic view of the entire case must be taken in the attending facts of each case. Considering all these factors among others, the foremost duty of the Court is to assess the evidence in a given case; imposing just and adequate punishment upon the accused.” 12. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also taking consideration that the appellant and complainant have already resolved their dispute, compromise has been arrived at between them and the complainant has also been settled in her 6 subsequent marriage life, therefore, I am of the view that the sentence deserves be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant i.e. 9 months. 13. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. The appellant is reported to be on bail and his bail bonds shall continue for further period of six months in view of Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 14. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish