Prem Kumar @ Premlal Kolta And Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.03.05 10:34:50 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:10431

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRA No. 1124 of 2012

¶7

1 - Prem Kumar @ Premlal Kolta, S/o Satyanarayan Kolta, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village - Ansula, PS - Pithoura, P.O. - Pithoura, Distt. - Mahasamund C.G.

¶8

2 - Anbati @ Ayanbati Kolta, W/o Satyanarayan Kolta Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village - Ansula, PS - Pithoura, P.O. - Pithoura, District - Mahasamund C.G.

¶9

... Appellants

¶10

versus

¶11

State of Chhattisgarh, Through The District Magistrate, Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund C.G.

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

For Appellant : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. HAPS Bhatia, Panel Lawyer

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶15

Judgment on Board

¶16

03/03/2025

¶17

The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.12.2012 passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Sessions Case No.67/2011 whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:

¶18

2

¶19

Conviction	Sentence
U/s 306/34 IPC	RI for 4 years and fine of Rs.200/- each, in default thereof, 2 months additional RI.

¶20

As per prosecution story, the deceased, Smt. Sumitra, was married to appellant, Premkumar, a resident of village Ansula, Police Station Pithora, on 23.03.2011, as per social customs. However, from the very first day of marriage, she did not experience any happiness. On the very first night of the wedding, her husband forcibly snatched her gold earrings and threw them away. He also broke her bangles and even forced her to consume three sex enhancement pills at once. Concerned about her health, her parents took her back to Bade Temri for medical treatment. However, 4–5 days later, her in-laws took her back to Ansula, under the pretext of performing religious rituals. There, she was subjected to chili smoke, had wood inserted into her ears, and was even sexually assaulted by her husband, who inserted a stick into her private parts, causing severe swelling. Her mother-in-law, Enbati falsely maligned her of having illicit relations and terminating a pregnancy. She repeatedly taunted her, saying, “You have had an abortion, you are still pregnant, tell me the name of the man you had relations with, I will get your sonography done.” This continuous harassment left the deceased terrified. Three days before her death, her in-laws came to take her back. However, she was so frightened at the thought of returning to her marital home that, feeling mentally and physically tortured by her husband and mother-in-law, she consumed poison on 19.06.2011, leading to her death. Upon receiving information, Marg was registered. Subsequently, a case was registered at Sankara Police Station. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the

¶21

3

¶22

appellants.

¶23

So as to hold the appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents. The statements of the appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.

¶24

After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.12.2012, the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He also submits that appellant No.1 is currently aged about 39 years and appellant No.2 is currently aged about 56 years, they already remained in jail for about 1 year 9 months. The incident took place in June, 2011 and since then the appellant is facing the lis. The appeal is pending since 2012. Hence, it is prayed that by enhancing the fine amount, the sentence of the appellants of the above offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by them in the interest of justice.

¶26

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment.

¶28

Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of Safed Bai (PW-1) and mother of the

¶29

4

¶30

deceased Uttara Bai (PW-2), 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 the conviction of the appellants for the offence as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment.

¶31

As regards the sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place in June, 2011 more than 13 years ago and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that at present the appellants are aged about 39 & 56 years respectively, they already remained in jail for about 1 year 9 months and they are facing the lis since June 2011, in the interest of justice, in considered opinion of this Court, it is appropriate to reduce the sentence of the appellant from R.I. for 4 years to the period already undergone by them i.e. 1 year 9 months for offence punishable under Section 306/34 of IPC. However, the fine amount of the above offence is enhanced from Rs.200/- to Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, the appellants shall liable to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. It is ordered accordingly.

¶32

Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove.

¶33

11.The appellants are on bail. They need not to surrender in this case. Their bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC.

¶34

Let a certif i ed copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary action, if any.

¶35

Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE

¶36

Shubham

Prem Kumar @ Premlal Kolta And Anr. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Kumar @ Premlal Kolta And Anr. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bal Govind Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt Ramkali Vs Vijay Kumar

Paramjeet Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Murit Ram Dhuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Bachad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Arjun and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh