1 2026:CGHC:14554 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 875 of 2026  Anand @ Rajaram S/o. Kuman Singh Marko Aged About 22 Years R/o. Village - Amjhar, Police Station - Pasan, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) ...Applicant(s) versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through - S.H.O., Pasan, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) ---Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Ananya Chatterjee, on behalf of Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For-Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 27/03/2026 1. This is an O+ce Reference. 2. PUD has been received from the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba, (C.G.) praying for providing suitable guidance/clari1cation regarding modi1ed sentence period of accused/appellant in CRA No. 1415/2024. 3. First of all, on a perusal of the impugned judgment, it is evident that the learned trial Court has convicted under Sections 450 and Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.03.27 14:48:56 +0530 2 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court has sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years along with a 1ne of ₹500/- for the o=ence under Section 450 IPC. Further, for the o=ence under Section 307 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years along with a 1ne of ₹1000/-. In default of payment of 1ne, the appellant is directed to undergo additional imprisonment of one month for each o=ence separately. It has also been directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 4. Vide CRA No. 1415/2024, this Court has passed the following order: Consequently, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 450 and 307 IPC is a+rmed. The trial court has relied excessively on presumption over direct evidence and failed to apply necessary safeguards applicable in criminal trials. While the conviction under Section 450 IPC stands with the appellant awarding 7 years RI and 1ne, the sentence under Section Section 307 IPC is reducedto the period already undergone by him in view of the mitigating factors, doubt on intention and appellant's subsequent conduct. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Sections 450 and 307 IPC are maintained. However, the sentence of 10 years RI under Section 307 IPC is reduced to that of 7 years. Since the appellant is already in custody, no order regarding his arrest etc. is required. 5. Therefore, it is crystal clear that though the conviction of the appellant under Sections 450 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code has been a+rmed by this Court, the sentence has been modi1ed to the extent that the sentence awarded under Section 307 IPC has been reduced from 10 years rigorous imprisonment to 7 years 3 rigorous imprisonment. Consequently, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under Section 450 IPC with 1ne of ₹500/- and 7 years under Section 307 IPC with 1ne of ₹1000/-. As per the order of the learned trial Court, both the sentences shall continue to run concurrently, and the appellant is required to undergo only the maximum of the modi1ed sentences, i.e., 7 years of rigorous imprisonment, subject to payment of 1ne. The trial Court has also directed that the period of judicial custody undergone by the appellant be set o= against the sentence in terms of Section 428 Cr.P.C. 6. The conviction and sentence awarded by the this Court by judgment dated 19.11.2025 in CRA No. 1415/2024 is as under:- Conviction under Section Modi"ed Sentence Section 450 IPC 7 years RI + ₹500 1ne Section 307 IPC Reduced to 7 years RI + ₹1000 1ne 7. In view of the above, there is no need of clari1cation. Accordingly, CRMP is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti