Chattisgarh High Court
Kunvarelal Souta vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 July, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by A
A ANNAJEE
RAO
ANNAJEE Date:
RAO 2025.07.26
14:39:53
+0530
2025:CGHC:35955
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 568 of 2024
Kunvarelal Souta S/o. Suklal, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Musyari
Ghat, Chowki Belgahna P.S. Kota District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ...
Appellant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station Chowki
Belgahna P.S. Kota District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent
For the appellant : Mr. Rakesh Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Manoj Jaiswal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Karan Kumar Bahrani, Panel Lawyer (Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 24/07/2025
1. The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been preferred by appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.05.2023 passed by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Case No. 11/2020 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:
Conviction : Sentence 2 U/s 304 Part (2) of RI for 7 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional IPC 1860 Simple Imprisonment for 1 month.
2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Devkunwar Sauta lodged FIR at the Belgahna Police Station to the effect that her husband was murdered by his brother-in-law (the appellant herein). She has stated in the report that she and her husband, deceased Ramkumar Sauta, along with their children, had come to the house of her brother Kunvarelal Souta (appellant) 15 days before the incident and were staying there and looking for livelihood. Deceased Ramkumar happens to be brother-in-law of accused Kunvarelal Sauta. In the night of 08.10.2019, a dance program was being held in village Khondri. Accused Kunwarelal Sauta told deceased Ramkumar that he was going to see the dance and asked him to take care of the house and went to see the dance with his family. After the accused left, deceased Ramkumar killed the chicken reared by accused Kunwarelal and got it cooked by his wife and ate it. Thereafter, deceased Ramkumar also went to Khondri to see the dance. On the second day of the incident, on 09.10.2019, in the morning, when the accused Kunwarlal came back after watching the dance, he came to know that the deceased Ramkumar had eaten his chicken and had gone to watch the dance. After the deceased returned from watching the dance, a dispute started between them in which the accused Kunwarlal hit the deceased Ramkumar on the back of his head with stick, due to which, deceased Ramkumar fell on the ground and died. Seeing the deceased Ramkumar dead, the appellant ran towards the forest. After completing the investigation and on complying with other procedural requirements, the charge sheet was filed.
3. The prosecution has in all examined 9 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents to prove its case. The accused was examined under Section 3 313 CrPC wherein he pleaded innocence and false implication. After conclusion of trial and considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on record, learned Trial Court by impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant(s) as mentioned above.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only to sentence part. He also submits that out of the maximum jail sentence of 7 years imposed on him u/s 304 ( Part 2) IPC he had already completed the jail sentence of about 5 years, 9 months & 13 days from the date of his arrest i.e., 11.10.2019. He submits that the incident took place in 2019, since then the appellant is in jail and is facing the lis and this appeal is pending since 2024 and now he is aged about more than 50 years. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence of the appellant under section 304 (Part-2) of IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by him in the interest of justice.
5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment.
7. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of witnesses especially eye-witness Devkunwar Sauta (P.W.5), wife of deceased and Phulmatiya (P.W.3) as also the Postmortem report (Ex.P-13) proved by Dr.N.K. Gupta (P.W.9), this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 304 (Part-2) of IPC and it is hereby affirmed.
4
8. As regards the sentence of Appellant, considering the facts that the incident had taken place in 2019 and the maximum jail sentence awarded to him is RI for 7 year u/s 304 (Part-2) IPC, out of which, as stated by learned counsel the appellant has been languishing in jail for the last 5 years, 9 months and 13 days and is facing the lis since 2019 and further looking to his present age, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence of the appellant from 7 years R.I. to the period already undergone by him. It is ordered accordingly.
9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove.
10. Appellant is in jail. He shall be released from jail forthwith if he is not required in any other offences.
11. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court and the concerned Superintendent of Jail forthwith for information and necessary action.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao