Jhitku Manjhwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under
Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated
Digitally 16.05.2025, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Surguja
signed by
VED
VED PRAKASH
PRAKASH DEWANGAN
DEWANGAN Date:
2025.10.0617:04:55 (Ambikapur), in Sessions Case No. 112 of 2024, whereby the
+0530
appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part-

¶16

2

¶17

II of IPC and sentenced R.I. for 07 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine further S.I. for 03 months.

¶18

The brief facts of the case are that, on 27.03.2024, on the merg intimation received by the police that the wife of the appellant has died in unnatural circumstances, merg inquiry was conducted and in the postmortem, it was found that the death was due to hemorrhage and shock and as a result of multiple injuries and also found that in the previous night, there was an altercation between the appellant and his wife (deceased) on the issue of drinking liquor and then he slapped her once and she fell down on the ground in the influence of liquor. He took her inside the room and again assaulted her by wooden plank, by which she died. The FIR (exhibit P-15) was registered under Section 302 of IPC against the appellant. Inquest (exhibit P-4) of the dead body of the deceased was conducted. The postmortem report (exhibit P-21) was obtained. Spot map (exhibit P- 8) was prepared by the Patwari and Exhibit P-13 was prepared by the police. Memorandum statement of the appellant (exhibit P-5) was recorded on 27.03.2024 and based on his memorandum statement, a wooden plank has been seized vide seizure memo (exhibit P-6). Blood stained and plain soil, bloods stains from the wall of room have also been seized vide seizure memo (exhibit P-7). The seized articles were sent for its chemical examination to Regional FSL, Ambikapur, from where report (exhibit P-19) was received and except the plain soil, blood was found on the sent articles. Statement of the witnesses have been recorded and after completion of

¶19

3

¶20

investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sitapur, District Surguja. The case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Ambikapur for its trial.

¶21

The learned trial Court has framed charge for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial.

¶22

In order to prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of CRPC has also been recorded, in which he denied the circumstances appears against him, pleaded innocence and has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence.

¶23

After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant from the offence under Section 302 of IPC, however he has been convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, he is not challenging the conviction of the appellant for the alleged offence, but he is challenging the sentence awarded to him, as Section 304 PartII of IPC does not provide any minimum sentence. The appellant is in

¶25

4

¶26

jail since 27.03.2024. The incident occurred in a heat of passion and under the influence of liquor. The appellant is a young person of 26 years of age and in view of the nature of offence and the manner in which it is allegedly committed by the appellant, the excessive sentence has been awarded by the learned trial Court, which may be reduced suitably.

¶27

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and has submitted that the learned trial Court after adverting the entire evidence available on record has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, which needs no interference.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶29

Although the appellant is not challenging his conviction part, yet this Court is examining the conviction of the appellant. From the evidence of Dr. Sandeep Kumar Bhagat (PW-11), who conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased, he found various injuries on the body of the deceased and found sub-skull and subskull hematoma and sub-dural hemorrhage and opined that the death was due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of multiple injuries. He also opined that to determine nature of death, further police investigation report and circumstance evidence are required. From the statement of Sarveshwar Yadav (PW-4), Mukesh Majhwar (PW6), Rijhni Majhwar (PW-7), Munni Majhwar (PW-8) and Dilip Majhwar (PW-9), the unnatural death of the deceased has been found and it is also found that the dead body of the deceased was in the house of

¶30

5

¶31

the appellant. The deceased was the wife of the appellant. From the evidence of doctor and the evidence of witnesses to the inquest, the learned trial Court has found that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, in which there is no infirmity or perversity from the evidence available on record. The learned trial Court has also considered the evidence that the dead body of the deceased was found in the house of the appellant in injured condition and he failed to explain as to how the number of injuries have been found on her body and how she died. There is no intervention of any third person in between them. The deceased has not died due to consuming liquor, but she died due to the multiple injuries found on her body. The wooden plank seized from the appellant was also found to be stained with human blood. Since the nature of injuries found on the body of the deceased was not of that grievous, so that it can be inferred the intention of the appellant to murder of his wife, therefore, by acquitting the appellant from the offence under Section 302 of IPC, he has been convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC, in which this Court does not find any infirmity or irregularity and the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Par-II of IPC is hereby affirmed.

¶32

With respect to the sentence awarded to the appellant, the provisions of Section 304 Part-II and the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant are considered. Section 304 Part-II of IPC does not provide any minimum sentence, which may extend to 10 years or with fine or with both. It is the case of the prosecution that the

¶33

6

¶34

altercation took place between the appellant and the deceased on the issue of drinking liquor, as the deceased had already drunk liquor. The liquor contents were also found in her abdomen during the postmortem of the dead body. No fractured injuries were found on the dead body. The appellant informed the witnesses about the incident. The appellant was aged about 26 years at the time of incident and the manner in which the alleged offence is committed, the sentence awarded to the appellant appears to be in higher side.

¶35

In the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 3 SCC 287 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that if you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries and held in Para 9 as follows:

¶36

"9. Western jurisprudes and sociologists. from their own angle have struck a like note. Sir Samuel Romilly, critical of the brutal penalties in the then Britain, said in 1817: "The laws of England are written in blood". Alfieri has suggested: 'society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it. George Micodotis, Director of Criminological Research Center, Athens, Greece, maintains that 'crime is the result of the lack of the right kind of education'. If it is thus plain that crime is a pathological aberration. that the criminal can ordinarily be redeemed, that the State has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub-culture that leads to anti-social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by reculturisation. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology is the individual, and the goal is salvaging him for society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today views

¶37

7

¶38

sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of social defense. We, therefore, consider a therapeutic, rather than an 'in terrorem' outlook, should prevail in our criminal courts. since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. In the words of George Bernard Shaw: 'If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries'. We may permit ourselves the liberty to quote from Judge Sir Jeoffrey Streatfield: "If you are going to have anything to do with the criminal Courts, you should see for yourself the conditions under which prisoners serve their sentences."

¶39

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence available on record and also the manner and nature of the alleged offence, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would meet, if the sentence awarded to the appellant is being reduced.

¶40

Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC, his sentence is reduced from R.I. for 07 years to R.I. for 05 years. The fine sentence and default stipulation awarded by the learned trial Court is remained intact. The appeal is partly allowed .

¶41

The appellant is in jail since 27.03.2024. He is entitled for set off of his undergone period during the trial as well as during the pendency of the appeal. He shall serve the sentence as modified by this Court.

¶42

8

¶43

Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.

¶44

Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶47

ved

Jhitku Manjhwar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jhitku Manjhwar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramratan Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Khageshwar Prasad (Since Died) Through LRs Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kiran Diwakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pradeep Dewangan Vs M/S Jai Vijay Textiles

Ramsu Kamar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tilak Ram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh