Santosh Nishad vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1766 Chatt

                                                                               NAFR

               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                       Criminal Appeal No. 618 of 2021

   • Santosh Nishad, S/o Bhagatram Nishad, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
     Udela, Police Station Simga, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara,
     Chhattisgarh.

                                                                        ---- Appellant

                                        Versus

   • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
     Simga, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                   ---- Respondent

For Appellant : Smt. Anubhuti Marhas, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Shri H.S. Ahluwalia, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Judgment on Board

13/08/2021

1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated

05/03/2021 passed in S.T. No.H-30/2015 by the Additional Sessions

Judge, Bhatapara, District - Balodabazaar, (C.G.) wherein appellant

has been convicted and sentenced as under :

                   Conviction                              Sentence

              U/s 498-A of the I.P.C.        R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-
                                                    with default stipulations.

2. According to case of the prosecution, deceased namely Santoshi

Nishad was the wife of the appellant. Their marriage was solemnized

prior to 13 years of the alleged incident. On 21/5/2015 deceased

Santoshi died by consuming some poisonous substance. It is alleged

that after her marriage, appellant used to commit marpit with his wife

(deceased). Prior to one month of the alleged incident, appellant had

also poured kerosene oil on her and tried to ablaze her. Thereafter, a

social meeting took place where appellant was fined to the tune of

Rs.10,000/-. Allegedly, he demanded this amount from deceased and

on her inability, he asked her to bring from her parents. Due to

continuous incidents of cruelty, harassment and physical assaults,

deceased committed suicide. Report was made by Santosh Kumar

Nishad (PW-3) i.e. brother of the deceased. Statement of the

witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After completion

of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. Trial Court framed

charges under Section 306 and 498-A of the I.P.C. against appellant.

To prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, prosecution has examined

as many as 15 witnesses. No defence witness has been examined.

Statement of appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded,

wherein accused/appellant has pleaded his innocence and false

implication in the matter.

3. After completion of trial, the trial Court has acquitted the appellant from

charges under Section 306 of the I.P.C., however, convicted and

sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment.

Hence, this appeal.

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that appellant is innocent and is falsely implicated in the present case. She

further submits that trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant

without there being sufficient and clinching evidence against him.

There is no evidence available on record on the basis of which it can

be established that appellant had demanded any dowry from his wife

(deceased). From the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it appears

that only domestic dispute used to take place between appellant and

deceased and the said does not fall within the ambit of Section 498-A

of the I.P.C. Therefore, conviction of the appellant is not sustainable.

5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the State supports the

impugned judgment and submits that sentence awarded by the trial

Court is just and proper and requires no interference.

6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, perused the

statement of witnesses and other annexed documents on available on

record minutely.

7. There is no dispute on the point that deceased was the wife of the

appellant. Santosh Nishad (PW-3) in his Court statement has

categorically deposed that prior to one month of the alleged incident,

appellant had poured kerosene oil on the deceased and due to this

reason, people of his society have scolded him and thereafter,

appellant used to commit quarrel with the deceased. Anand Nishad

(PW-4), Chetan Nishad (PW-5), Ramesh Kumar Nishad (PW-7) have

also deposed that appellant tried to kill his wife (deceased) by pouring

kerosene oil on her, due to which a social meeting took place.

Statements of above witnesses have not duly been rebutted during

their cross-examination on this particular point. Mother of the deceased namely, Birjha Bai (PW-8) has also deposed that when she

met with her daughter (deceased) in hospital, at that time she

(deceased) had told her that appellant used to abuse her and commit

marpit with her. Statement of this witness is also not duly rebutted. Son

of appellant namely Tikeshwar (PW-9) has also supported the case of

the prosecution and has deposed that appellant used to misbehave

and commit marpit with the deceased. Looking to the entire evidence

adduced by the prosecution, in my considered view, the trial Court has

rightly convicted the appellant. Thus, conviction is affirmed.

8. With regard to the sentence of the appellant, considering the facts that

appellant has three children, out of total jail sentence of 3 years, he

has undergone about 1 year in jail, he is facing the lis since 2015 and

there is no criminal antecedent against him, I am of the view that the

ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed

upon the appellant, the jail sentenced awarded to him is reduced to the

period already undergone by him.

9. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the

appellant under the aforementioned Section is affirmed and he is

sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence

is affirmed.

10. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this

order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Prakash