Chandra Bhan Singh vs State Of C.G
2022 Latest Caselaw 5265 Chatt

                                                                      Page No.1


                                                                    NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                            CR.A. No. 262 of 2002
Chandrabhan Singh, S/o. Dukalu Singh Rajpoot, aged about 32 years,
Cultivator and resident of village Parpoda, Police Chowki- Deokar, Police
Station - Saja, District - Durg (C.G.)
                                                                 ---- Appellant
                                    Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Police Station - Saja, District - Durg (C.G.)
                                                              -----Respondent


For Appellant                     : Mr. Sameer Singh, Advocate
For Respondent/State              : Mr. Praveen Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer



                Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

                               Order On Board

22.08.2022

1.     Appellant by this appeal has challenged the legality and

       sustainability of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence

       dated 26.02.2002, passed in Sessions Trial No. 251 of 1994,

       whereby Third Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court)

       Bemetara, District - Durg convicted the appellant for offence under

       Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo

       rigorous imprisonment for 2 years.


2.     Facts

relevant for disposal of appeal are that appellant got married

with Rekha Bai in the month of May, 1991. After marriage Rekha

Bai started living in her matrimonial home with her in-laws. She was

being ill treated by her in-laws and also being assaulted by Page No.2

appellant/husband. She committed suicide on 05.05.1994 by

hanging herself in her matrimonial home. The incident was reported

to Police Station - Saja, based upon which, FIR was registered

against the appellant, Dukalu Singh, father-in-law and Devki Bai,

mother-in-law of the deceased for offence under Section 304- B

read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of

investigation, charge-sheet was filed against appellant, Dukalu

Singh, father-in-law and Devki Bai, mother-in-law of the deceased,

before the Court of competent jurisdiction for commission of

aforementioned offences.

3. Learned trial Court framed charges under Section 304 -B of the

Indian Penal Code against the appellant and two other accused

persons, which they denied. During the course of trial, learned Court

below framed additional charge for offence defined under Section

498- A of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons on

31.10.2001. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses

namely Siddhanath Singh Parihar (P.W.-1), Bhuneshwari Bai (P.W.-

2), Mahesh (P.W.-3), Dr. P.D. Chandrawanshi (P.W.-4), Smt. Anjani

Bai Pandey (P.W.-5), Harishchandra Pandey (P.W.-6), Santosh

Shrivastava (P.W.-7), Bhagela Singh (P.W.-8), Kunjbihari Singh

(P.W.-9), V.K. Sharma (P.W.-10) and Mandavi Bai (P.W.-11). The

statement of appellant and two other co-accused persons were

recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and they denied all the

incriminating evidence appearing against them and pleaded

innocence and false implication. Two witnesses were examined in

defence namely Jageshwar (D.W.-1) and Setu (D.W.-2). After

conclusion of trial, learned trial Court upon appreciation of Page No.3

documents and oral evidence brought on record by the prosecution,

acquitted Dukalu Singh and Devki Bai, father-in-law and mother-in-

law of the deceased from the charges under Section 304-B and

498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant was also acquitted from

the charge under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, however,

he was convicted for offence under Section 498-A of the Indian

Penal Code and sentenced him as mentioned above.

4. Shri Sameer Singh, learned counsel for the appellant would submit

that learned Court below erred in convicting the appellant for

offence under Section 498A of I.P.C. on the same set of facts on

which other two accused persons were acquitted from the charges.

General allegations were leveled against all the family members

including father-in-law and mother-in-law. There is no specific

allegations mentioning the date on which the appellant treated the

deceased with cruelty and also assaulted her. He also submits that

finding recorded by the Court below holding the appellant guilty for

committing the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. is perverse. In

alternative, it is submitted that date of incident is of May, 1994,

appellant has suffered with mental agony of trial and pendency of

appeal before this Court, he has already undergone about 6 months

and 26 days of his substantive jail sentence, hence, if the Court

comes to a conclusion that the finding of conviction under Section

498-A of I.P.C. recorded by learned trial Court is based on

evidence, then the sentence imposed upon appellant by the trial

Court be modified to the period already undergone by him in jail.

5. Shri Praveen Shrivastava, learned counsel for the State submits

that the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses to prove Page No.4

the charges levelled against the appellant. Not only the family

members of the deceased but also other witnesses, who were

known to the deceased - Rekha Bai, who in their Court statements

have made categorical statement that deceased was treated with

cruelty and assaulted by the appellant. Finding recorded by the trial

Court that the appellant harassing, assaulting and treating the

deceased with cruelty is based on evidence available on record,

hence, the finding recorded by the trial Court do not call for any

interference.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused

the record of the trial Court.

7. It is not in dispute that appellant married with deceased Rekha Bai

in the month of May, 1991 and she committed suicide by hanging

herself in her matrimonial home. The police based on morgue

intimation, registered FIR against the appellant and two other

accused persons for offence under Section 304-B of I.P.C.. After

completion of investigation, charge-sheet was also filed for the said

offence only. Initially learned trial Court framed charges for offence

under Section 304-B of I.P.C. later on during the course of trial

based on other material available has framed additional charge

under Section 498-A of I.P.C. against all three accused persons.

Learned trial Court upon appreciation of evidence brought on record

by the prosecution arrived at a finding that the prosecution has

failed to prove the charge against the accused persons for offence

under Section 304-B of I.P.C. While considering the evidence with

respect to offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C., the learned trial

Court acquitted father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased Page No.5

from the charges under Section 498-A of I.P.C. however, hold the

appellant guilty for commission of offence under Section 498-A of

I.P.C.

8. Deceased hanged herself in her matrimonial home within three

years of her marriage. Prosecution examined Siddharth Singh

Parihar (P.W.-1) (father of the deceased), who clearly stated in his

statement in Para-36 that the act of ill treatment to her daughter was

brought to the notice of members of his community. Bhuneshwari

Bai (P.W.-2), sister-in-law of the deceased in her statement in Para-

9 of her deposition, stated that the appellant assaulted - Rekha Bai

before her. Mahesh (P.W.-3), who is friend of brother of deceased -

Rekha Bai, stated in his Court statement that appellant used to

torture and assault the deceased and this fact was informed by

deceased - Rekha Bai to him. Smt. Anjani Bai Pandey (P.W.-5) is

an independent witness, who in her statement had deposed that

she came to know about unhappy relationship of Rekha Bai with

appellant and when she asked Rekha about the dispute between

them, she narrated her that appellant used to assault her without

any reason. Santosh Shrivastava (P.W.-7), who is landlord, in

whose house, brother of the deceased - Chetan along with

appellant and deceased resided. This witness also stated that

appellant used to assault the deceased. As stated by the witnesses,

the place of assault and cruel treatment to the deceased is of

Raipur. When deceased came back from Raipur to her matrimonial

home, within a period of one month, she hanged herself and died.

9. In view of the aforementioned evidence available on record, the

submissions of learned counsel for the appellant that finding of Page No.6

learned trial Court holding the appellant guilty for commission of

offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. to be perverse, is not

sustainable. The finding recorded by learned trial Court is on proper

appreciation of evidence available on record, I do not find any

infirmity or illegality in the finding recorded by the learned trial Court

holding the appellant guilty for commission of offence under Section

498-A of I.PC. The finding of the learned trial Court to this effect is

affirmed.

10. So far as the alternate prayer made by learned counsel for the

appellant that looking to the period since the criminal case was

registered against the appellant and the period already undergone

by him i.e. about 6 months and 26 days, the sentence of 2 years

R.I. be modified to the period already undergone is concerned,

perusal of the record would show that date of incident is

05.05.1994, appellant was initially arrested on 19.05.1994 and he

remained in jail till 15.12.1994. The evidence of Bhuneshwari Bai

(P.W.-2) would show that when the appellant assaulted the

deceased - Rekha Bai before her, she asked the appellant reason

of assault, then he replied that because of unnecessary arguments

by her with him. Smt. Anjani Bai Pandey (P.W.-5) in her statement

also stated that when she enquired about the reason of assault,

from deceased, she told her that appellant assaulted her without

any reason.

11. In view of the aforementioned evidence available on record,

considering the pendency of criminal case against the appellant

since 1994 i.e. for about 28 years and also for the reason that the

appellant has already served jail sentence of six months and 26 Page No.7

days, I find it to be an appropriate case to modify the sentence

awarded to the appellant and to sentence him for the period

undergone by him in jail. It is ordered accordingly. The conviction of

the appellant under Section 498-A of I.P.C. is maintained, however,

the sentence part is modified and he is sentenced to the period

already undergone by him in jail, which is six months and 26 days.

12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.

Sd/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram