Chattisgarh High Court
Murit Ram Dhuri vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 March, 2025
2025:CGHC:10415
Digitally
signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH PATEL
PATEL Date:
2025.03.06
11:17:11
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 191 of 2007
• Murit Ram Dhuri, S/o Dhan Singh Dhuri, Kotmisonar,
Aged About 25 Years, Occupation- Agriculture, R/o Village
Kotmisonar, Police Station - Akaltara, District- Janjgir-
Champa (C.G.).
... Appellant
versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Akaltara, District-
Janjgir-Champa (C.G.).
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Ajay Ku. Chandra, Advocate.
For State/Respondent : Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
03/03/2025
1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 09.02.2007 passed
by the learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in
Sessions Trial No. 64/2006 whereby the learned Sessions
Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as
under:-
Conviction Sentence
R.I. for 03 years with fine of Rs.
5000/-; in default of payment
U/s 498-A of IPC
of fine amount additional R.I. for
09 month.
2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused
Murit Ram and Annapurna were married on Ramnavmi of
year 2005. After a month later, the mother of accused
asked Ramkripal (Father of deceased) to come to her village
Kotmi Sonar, where he was told to take Annapurna back
home as she could not cook and not even live properly.
Ramkripal advised the accused to take care of Annapurna
for a few more days. However, the accused started beating
Annapurna and eventually threw her out of the house and
also demanded a motorbike, a color TV, and cash of Rs.20-
30,000/-. Annapurna informed her parents about the
incident and such behaviour of accused. After 15 days, on
11.02.2006 the deceased (Annapurna) found dead in
house, after consumption of poison substance. Thereafter,
the matter was reported to the police station Akaltara,
wherein offence was registered against the present
appellant under sections 304-B and 306 of IPC.
3 During the course of trial, in order to bring home the
offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 10
witnesses and exhibited 15 documents. The statement of
the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing
against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in
the case.
4 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 09.02.2007, learned
trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence
punishable under sections 304-B and 306 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 appellant
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 2006, and thereby about 19 years have rolled by
since then. At present, the appellant is aged about 44 years
and the appellant has liability of his family as he has
married with another woman and he has three children
from their wedlock and the appellant has already remained
in jail for about 03 months 14 days, and no useful purpose
would be served in again sending him to jail, therefore, in
the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the
sentence imposed upon him may be reduced to the period
already undergone by him.
6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State,
supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the
arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant.
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, Ramayan Prasad (PW-2),
Laxmi Bai (PW-3), Rajendra Kumar (PW-4), Dr. Ramayan
Singh (PW-7), establish the involvement of the appellant 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 appellant 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 11.02.2006 about 19 years ago
and further considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and also considering the fact that the appellant has
liability of his family as he has married with another
woman and he has three children from their wedlock, and
he has already remained in jail for about 03 months 14
days, this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice
would be served if he is sentenced to the period already
undergone by him.
10 In view of the above consideration, I do not feel it
appropriate to send back the appellant to jail. Hence, the
appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by
him i.e., about 03 months 14 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. 5000/- imposed upon the appellant by the
trial Court is hereby enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- which shall
be payable by the appellant, failing which the appellant
shall be liable to undergo R.I. for 06 months. Fine, if any,
deposited by the appellant 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 Appellant is on bail. His bail bond 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.
