Partly allowed¶¶31

Setkumar Behra v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Dec 2025CRR/456/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh HC Bilaspur; Criminal Revision No. 456 of 2016; S. 397/401 CrPC revision; S. 498-A IPC cruelty and dowry demand; conviction affirmed; sentence reduction to period already undergone (14 days); lis pending since November 2004 over 21 years; elderly accused (above 60); no criminal antecedents; fine of Rs. 5,000/- each affirmed; S. 481 BNSS 2023 bail bond six months; Radhakishan Agrawal, J.; decision dated 16.12.2025; marked NAFR on the certified copy.

What did the court decide?

Revision partly allowed: conviction of the applicants under S. 498-A IPC affirmed; jail sentence reduced to the period already undergone (14 days); fine sentence affirmed; since the applicants are reported to be on bail, their bail bonds to remain in force for six months under S. 481 BNSS, 2023. ¶¶31

Setkumar Behra Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the applicants under S. 498-A IPC, as recorded by the JMFC and affirmed by the appellate court, is correct and sustainable. +1 more

¶¶27

Court's answer

The findings recorded by the trial court and the appellate court, being based on the evidence on record, are correct; the conviction of the applicants under S. 498-A IPC is affirmed.

¶¶27

Ratio / Principle

Having regard to the applicants' 14 days in custody, the lis pending since November 2004 (over 21 years), applicants No. 2 and 3 being over 60 years old, and absence of criminal antecedents, ends of justice are met by reducing the jail sentence to the period already undergone (14 days) while upholding the conviction.

¶¶30

Key takeaways

The revision is partly allowed: the conviction is affirmed, the applicants are sentenced to the period already undergone, and the fine sentence is affirmed.ratio¶¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision No. 456 of 2016, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Radhakishan Agrawal, J., 16.12.2025): Applicants (husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of complainant Sukanti Behra) were convicted under S. 498-A IPC by the JMFC, Raigarh in Criminal Case No. 111/2010 (judgment dated 27.01.2016) and sentenced to R.I. 1 year each with fine of Rs. 5,000/- each; the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 20200000092016 (judgment dated 05.05.2016) partly allowed the appeal, affirming the conviction but reducing the sentence to R.I. 4 months each and maintaining the fine. In revision under S. 397/401 CrPC, counsel did not challenge the conviction but sought reduction of sentence to the period already undergone, citing 14 days in custody (05.05.2016 to 18.05.2016), a lis pending since November 2004 (over 21 years), applicants No. 2 and 3 being over 60 years of age, no criminal antecedents, and the fine already deposited. Held: the findings of the trial court and appellate court being based on the evidence on record are correct and the conviction is affirmed; however, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the applicants back to jail, and the jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone (14 days); the fine is affirmed; the revision is partly allowed; bail bonds to remain in force for six months under S. 481 BNSS, 2023.

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

Digitally signed by PRAKASH PRAKASH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.12.16 16:19:57 +0530

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

Criminal Revision No. 456 of 2016

¶6

1. Setkumar Behra, S/o Shri Shiv Prasad Behra, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Puri, Tahsil and P.S. Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh, Civil and Rev. Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

2. Shiv Prasad, S/o Shri Sudarshan Behra, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Village Puri, Tahsil and P.S. Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh, Civil and Rev. Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

3. Smt. Annapurna Behra, W/o Shir Shiv Prasad Behra, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Puri, Tahsil and P.S. Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh, Civil and Rev. Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

... Applicants

¶10

versus

¶11

State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raigarh Civil and Rev. Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶12

... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sachidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

16.12.2025

¶16

1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 05.05.2016 passed by the 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 20200000092016 arising out of judgment dated 27.01.2016, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh (C.G.) in Criminal Case

¶17

¶18

No.111/2010 wherein the Applicants have been convicted under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’) and sentenced for R.I. for 1 year each and fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 3 months each. The learned Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal by affirming the conviction of the applicants, and reducing their sentence from R.I. 1 year to R.I. 4 months each, however, maintained the fine amount. In default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 3 months each.

¶19

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, applicant No.1 is the husband of the complainant – Sukanti Behra while applicant No.2 and applicant No.3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant respectively. The allegations against the applicants are that after the marriage, the applicants demanded dowry from the father of the complainant and also demanded cash amount. It is further alleged that the applicants used to abuse and torture the complainant due to which she was forced to leave her matrimonial house. On the basis of the above background, the offence was registered against the applicants and, thereafter, statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

¶20

3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh, against the applicants, who abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty.

¶21

4. Learned Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. The said judgment was challenged by the applicants in Criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide

¶22

¶23

judgment dated 05.05.2016 allowed the appeal in part. Hence, this revision.

¶24

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicants submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicants but is challenging the sentence part, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that the applicants have remained in jail for 14 days i.e. from 05.05.2016 to 18.05.2016, they are facing the lis since November, 2004 i.e. for more than 21 years, and at present, applicant No.2 and 3 are more than 60 years old. He further submits that the applicants have no criminal antecedent. This apart, the fine amount has already been deposited before the concerned trial Court. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶25

6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment passed by the learned JMFC and Appellate Court.

¶26

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record.

¶27

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, statements of Sukanti (PW-02), Ranjit (PW-03), Nilamani (PW-04), Susanna Tirkey (PW-01), supported with the other evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is correct finding. Thus, I hereby affirm the conviction of the applicants.

¶28

9. As regards the sentence part of the applicants, considering the facts

¶29

¶30

and circumstances of the case and further considering the facts that applicants have remained in jail for 14 days, they are facing the lis since November, 2004 i.e. for more than 21 years and at present Applicant No.2 and 3 are more than 60 years old, they have no criminal antecedent, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served to send the applicants back to jail again, and ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon applicants, the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them i.e. 14 days.

¶31

10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of applicants under the aforementioned Sections is affirmed and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. The fine sentence is hereby affirmed.

¶32

11. Since the applicants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision contained under Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE

¶35

Prakash

Setkumar Behra v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Setkumar Behra 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

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Kunjami Somaram

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Vinod @ Kariya

Arun Dashmale Vs Rambharos Sahu

Atul Shukla Vs Shri Krishna Kumar Agrawal

Dhanraj Agarwal Vs Hulesh Satnami

Prakash Yadav Vs Pramod Benjamin