Imtiyaj Ansari Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Imtiyaj Ansari Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal appeal allowed in part: conviction under Section 498-A IPC maintained, but jail sentence reduced to the period already undergone (more than 1 year, 2 months and 4 days); fine of Rs.500/- left intact; appellant on bail need not surrender and bail bonds kept operative for a further 6 months under Section 481 BNSS, 2023; trial Court record to be sent back forthwith.

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 498-A IPC called for interference, the appellant having chosen not to press the challenge to the conviction part of the impugned judgment. +1 more

Court's answer

After perusal of the entire evidence, the conviction of the appellant under Section 498-A IPC is found to be proper and no interference is required in the conviction part of the impugned judgment.

Ratio / Principle

Considering the totality of the case, ends of justice would be served by sentencing the appellant to the period already undergone; the jail sentence of 3 years is accordingly reduced to the period already undergone while maintaining the conviction.

Key takeaways

The fine of Rs.500/- imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court shall remain intact.ratio¶11
The appellant, who is on bail, need not surrender; the bail bonds furnished by him shall remain in operation for a further period of 6 months from the date of the judgment in view of Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal (CRA No. 658 of 2005, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J., decided 23-09-2025) — Conviction under Section 498-A IPC — Challenge to conviction not pressed; confined to sentence — Conviction held proper and maintained — Sentencing: appellant, a labour-class person with no previous criminal antecedents, had already undergone more than 1 year, 2 months and 4 days of the 3-year RI imposed by the trial Court (which had acquitted all accused of Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC and convicted the appellant instead under Section 498-A IPC) in a case relating to an incident of the year 2004 — Jail sentence reduced to the period already undergone; fine of Rs.500/- intact — Appeal allowed in part — Appellant on bail need not surrender; bail bonds to remain in operation for a further period of 6 months in view of Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

1

Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.09.25 13:35:10 +0530

2025:CGHC:48857

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRA No. 658 of 2005

Imtiyaj Ansari, son of Nizamuddin, aged about 22 years, resident of Ranpur Khurd, Takiya Road, PS Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (CG)

--- Appellant

versus

State Of Chhattisgarh through PS Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (CG)

--- Respondent

For appellant : Mr. Sushil Dubey, Adv. For Respondent : Ms. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer.

(Hon’ble Mr. Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J)

Judgment on Board

23/09/2025

This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8- 8-2025 passed by learned 5^th Upper Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Ambikapur, Surguja (CG) in Sessions Case No. 370/2004, whereby the appellant / accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the India Penal Code (in brevity ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/- and in

2

default of payment of fine, to undergo 6 months’ additional RI.

Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that, marriage of appellant/accused was solemnized with Afsana on 24-4-2003. After marriage, appellant/accused and his family members started harassing deceased Afsana on account of dowry, therefore, on 15-6-2004, she committed suicide by hanging herself. Merg was lodged in PS Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja. Inquest (Ex. P-3) of the dead body of the deceased was conducted, spot map (Ex P-5) was prepared, post mortem upon the dead body of deceased was conducted by Dr. J.K. Bhutani (P.W. 1), in which, vide his report Ex. P-1, he opined that death of the deceased occurred due to asphyxia caused by hanging. Based on merg report, FIR (Ex. P-4) was lodged in PS Ambikapur against the appellant, his brother and mother. Statement of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Accused persons were arrested vide Ex. P-7, Ex. P-8 and Ex. P-9. After due investigation, a charge-sheet under Section 306 of the IPC was filed by the police before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur against the appellant, his brother and his mother.

Charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC was framed and explained to the appellant and other accused persons, who absurd their guilt.

In order to prove the guilt of accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 9 documents, statements of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.

3

were recorded in which, they denied all the circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and their false implication, but they have not examined any witness in their defence. However, they exhibited two documents i.e. police statement of Fatima Bibi and Mumtaj Ansari as Ex. D-1 and D-2.

Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution, acquitted all the three accused persons from the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC, but convicted the appellant/accused under Section 498A of the IPC instead of offence under Section 306 of the IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that he does not want to press instant appeal so far as conviction part of the judgment is concerned, rather he would confine his argument only to the sentence part. He would further submit that, appellant/accused was arrested on 18-6-2004 and has remained in custody till 22-8-2005 i.e. 1 year, 2 months and 4 days. The appellant/accused has already deposited fine amount. He further submits that he is a labour class person, he has not committed any other offence. Even after conviction, he is living peaceful life. Therefore, his jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the State, while supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the argument advanced by counsel for the appellant/accused and submitted that no interference is called

4

for in the impugned order of sentence also against the appellant.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record of the trial Court.

Learned counsel for the appellant/accused has not argued on conviction part of the impugned judgment and also the fine sentence. Even otherwise after perusal of the entire evidence, conviction awarded to the accused/ appellant is found to be proper and no interference is required in conviction part of the judgment.

So far as sentence is concerned, keeping in view the fact that, the appellant/accused has been convicted for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC instead of Section 306 of the IPC, no previous criminal antecedent of appellant is available on record, out of the jail sentence of 3 years, the appellant has already served more than 1 year, 2 months and 4 days, the incident is of the year 2004, considering the totality of the case, no useful purpose would be served in upholding the jail sentence imposed against the appellant/accused by the trial Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, ends of justice would be served, if appellant/accused is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant/accused under Section 498-A of the IPC is maintained, but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court shall remain intact.

Consequently, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part to the extent

5

indicated herein-above.

The appellant/accused is said to be on bail. He need not surrender. The bail bonds furnished by him shall remain in operation for a further period of 6 months from today in view of the provisions contained under Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any.

Sd/-

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE

pathak

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8-8-2025 in Sessions Case No. 370/2004: appellant convicted under Section 498-A IPC (instead of Section 306 IPC, of which all three accused were acquitted) and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/-, default 6 months' additional RI.¶1
5th Upper Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Ambikapur, Surguja (CG) · 8-8-2025
Prior proceeding
Marriage of the appellant/accused solemnized with deceased Afsana on 24-4-2003.¶2
Prior proceeding
Alleged dowry harassment by the appellant and his family members; deceased Afsana committed suicide by hanging on 15-6-2004; merg lodged at PS Ambikapur.¶2
Prior proceeding
Inquest (Ex. P-3) and spot map (Ex. P-5) prepared; post-mortem (report Ex. P-1) by Dr. J.K. Bhutani (P.W.1) opined death due to asphyxia caused by hanging.¶2
Prior proceeding
FIR (Ex. P-4) lodged at PS Ambikapur against the appellant, his brother and his mother.¶2
Prior proceeding
Witness statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; accused persons arrested vide Exs. P-7, P-8 and P-9.¶2
Prior proceeding
Charge-sheet under Section 306 IPC filed by police before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, against the appellant, his brother and his mother.¶2
Prior proceeding
Charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC framed and explained to the accused persons, who did not plead guilty.¶3
Prior proceeding
Trial: prosecution examined 7 witnesses and exhibited 9 documents; accused statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. recorded denying circumstances; no defence witness examined; defence documents Ex. D-1 and D-2 (police statements of Fatima Bibi and Mumtaj Ansari).¶4
Prior proceeding
Trial Court acquitted all three accused of the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC but convicted the appellant under Section 498-A IPC.¶5
Prior proceeding
Appellant in custody from arrest on 18-6-2004 until 22-8-2005, i.e. 1 year, 2 months and 4 days.¶6