Chattisgarh High Court
Devsharan Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 July, 2021
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 1051 of 2017
Devsharan Singh S/o Late Jaipal Singh, Aged About 35 Years
R/o Village Mendra, Police Station Jhagrakhand, District Koriya,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District Koriya,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For Appellant :Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate.
For State/Respondent :Mr. Akhtar Hussain, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
Judgment on Board
08.07.2021
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated
09.05.2017 passed in Sessions Trial No.61/2015 by the
learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, Distt.
Koriya (C.G.) wherein, the Appellant has been convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the IPC
and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay fine of
Rs. 1,000/-, with default stipulation.
2. In this case, deceased Indra Kuwar was wife of the Appellant.
According to the case of prosecution, on 25.04.2015 at
around 10 AM, both Appellant and the deceased went to the
house of one Balraj Singh (PW-1), in courtyard of Balraj
Singh, a quarrel has taken place between the Appellant and
the deceased for consumption of liquor. Allegedly, at that time
the Appellant assaulted the deceased with the help of club
due to which the deceased sustained injuries on her body.
She died while taking her to hospital Manendragarh. FIR has
been lodged by daughter of the Appellant namely Ku.
Kalawati (PW-2). Later on statements of witnesses recorded
under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation,
charge-sheet was filed by the Police. Trial Court framed the
charges against the Appellant. To robe the Appellant in the
crime-in-question, the prosecution has examined as many as
17 witnesses. In the statement of the Appellant recorded
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, he has pleaded his innocence
and false implication in the matter, however, no defence
witness was examined by the Appellant. After completion of
trial, Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as
mentioned in Para 01 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that he
does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his
argument to the sentence part only. He further submits that
suddenly in a fit of rage, the alleged incident was occurred.
the Appellant has already completed 6 years 4 months out of
10 years of jail sentence, he has no criminal antecedent and
has facing the lis since 2015. The Counsel lastly submits that
the Appellant is the soul caretaker of his children, therefore, it
is prayed that the jail sentence awarded to the Appellant may
be reduced to the period already undergone by him or may be
reduced to some extent.
4. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the appeal
and supported the impugned judgment.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties and perused the record minutely.
6. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly considering the fact that the Appellant is the soul
caretaker of his children, suddenly in a fit of rage, the alleged
incident was occurred, the Appellant has already completed 6
years 4 months out of 10 years of jail sentence, he has no
criminal antecedent and has facing the lis since 2015.
Looking to the above facts, I am of the view that the end of
justice would be met if the conviction of the Appellant for the
offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the IPC is
reduced from 10 years to 7 years 6 months and the fine
sentence is affirmed.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
8. 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
Shubham
