Chattisgarh High Court
Manoj Kumar Patel And 2 Ors vs State Of Cg on 27 February, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:9941
Digitally
NAFR
signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH PATEL
PATEL Date:
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
2025.03.04
10:53:56
+0530
CRA No. 846 of 2007
1. Manoj Kumar Patel, Aged about 22 years, S/o Shri Nanak
Chand Patel, R/o Village-Lokhandi, P.S. Sarkanda, Tahsil
Takhatpur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.).
2. Nanak Chand Patel, Aged about 45 years, S/o Shri
Bhawani Patel, R/o Village-Lokhandi, P.S. Sarkanda, Tahsil
Takhatpur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.).
3. Smt. Phoolbasan Bai, Aged about 40 years, W/o Shri
Nanak Chand Patel, R/o Village-Lokhandi, P.S. Sarkanda,
Tahsil Takhatpur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.).
... Appellant
versus
• State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. Sarkanda, District-
Bilaspur (C.G.).
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Tarun Dadsena, Advocate.
For State/Respondent : Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
27/02/2025
1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 05.09.2007 passed
by the learned 06th Upper Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.)
in Sessions Trial No. 152/2007 whereby the learned 06th
Upper Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the
appellants as under :
Conviction Sentence
R.I. for 03 years with fine of Rs.
100/- to each of the appellants;
U/s 498-A of IPC in default of payment of fine
amount additional R.I. for 01-01
month to each.
2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.05.2007
at about 08:40 Am in Village Lokhandi, Beena Patel
(deceased) who was the wife of appellant No. 1 and
daughter-in-law of Appellants No. 2 & 3. The accused
allegedly demanded a motorcycle as dowry from Beena
Patel, which led to Beena consuming poison and admitted
in CIMS hospital Bilaspur for treatment, during treatment
caused her death. Thereafter merg intimation was
registered and on the basis of merg intimation, FIR was
lodged and offence was registered against the present
appellants under Section 304-B of IPC and after completion
of investigation, charge sheet has been filed.
3 During the course of trial, in order to bring home the
offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 10
witnesses and exhibited 08 documents. The statement of
the appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing
against them and pleaded innocence and false implication
in the case.
4 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 05.09.2007, learned
trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence
punishable under section 304-B of IPC. However, he has
been convicted and sentenced for the offence as mentioned
in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.
5 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
submits that he is not pressing the appeal so far as it
relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would
confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only.
According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in
the year 2007, and thereby more than 17 years have rolled
by since then. At present, the appellant No. 01 is aged
about more than 39 years, appellant No. 2 is aged about
more than 62 years and appellant No. 3 is aged about more
than 57 years and the appellants have already remained in
jail for about 04 months 05 days, and no useful purpose
would be served in again sending them to jail, therefore, in
the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the
sentence imposed upon them may be reduced to the period
already undergone by them.
6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State,
supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the
arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for
appellants.
7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record including the impugned judgment.
8 Having gone through the material available on record and
the evidence of the witnesses, Babulal (PW-1), Motilal (PW-
2), Ram Prasad (PW-3), Prakash Toppo (PW-8), Dr. Mahesh
(PW-9) and Asha Lakda (PW-10), establish the involvement
of the appellants in the crime in question. This Court does
not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial
Court as regards conviction of the appellants for the offence
punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.
9 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the
incident had taken place on 19.05.2007 about more than
17 years ago and further considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and also considering the fact
that the appellants have already remained in jail for about
04 months 05 days, this court is of the opinion that the
ends of justice would be served if they are sentenced to the
period already undergone by them.
10 In view of the above consideration, I do not feel it
appropriate to send back the appellants to jail. Hence, the
appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone
by him i.e., about 04 months 05 days instead of suffering
rigorous imprisonment for 03 years for the offence
punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. However, the fine
amount of Rs. 100/- imposed upon the appellants by the
trial Court is hereby enhanced to Rs. 3,000/- which shall
be payable by each of the appellants, failing which the
appellants shall be liable to undergo R.I. for 03 months.
Fine, if any, deposited by the appellants shall be adjusted
in the fine imposed/enhanced by this Court today.
11 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent
indicated above.
12 Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall continue for a
further period of 6 months as per requirement of Section
437-A of the Cr.P.C.
13 Record of the trial Court be sent back along with a copy of
this judgment forthwith for information and necessary
action, if any.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
JUDGE
Sourabh P.
