Chattisgarh High Court
Chandra Bhan Singh vs State Of C.G on 22 August, 2022
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
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