Chattisgarh High Court
Lukeshwar @ Lukesh Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 June, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
BHOLA
BHOLA NATH
NATH KHATAI
KHATAI Date:
2025.06.20
11:06:26
+0530
2025:CGHC:25315
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1469 of 2021
Lukeshwar @ Lukesh Sahu S/o Hiraman Sahu Aged About 41
Years R/o Village Choti Kareli, Police Station Magarload, District
Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At Village Thuha
Navagaon, Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari,
Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kurud, District
Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
For Appellant : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Ms. Prabha Sharma, P.L.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
18/06/2025
1. The present appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been
filed against the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 09.11.2021 passed by learned Sessions
Judge, Dhamtari (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 47/2019
whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as
2
under :
Conviction Sentence
Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years
with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of
U/s 498A of IPC
payment of fine amount, additional
R.I. for 2 months.
2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant and
deceased Amin Sahu were married in the year 2005. The
deceased was working as a Shiksha Karmi. In the year
2019, the appellant requested deceased Amin Sahu to take
loan from her department and also sell the land in Kurud
to start a Service Center, which the deceased refused, due
to which a dispute started between them. Thereafter, the
appellant used to harass the deceased and abet her to
commit suicide, as a result of which she committed suicide
by consuming poison on 29.07.2019. The matter was
reported to PS Kurud by Naresh Bharti, Ward Boy, Civil
Hospital, Kurud, based on which FIR was registered and
after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed
against the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of
IPC.
3. So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has
examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 25
documents. The statement of the appellant was also
recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he
denied the circumstances appearing against him and
pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.
4. After hearing the parties and appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence available on record, vide impugned
judgment dated 09.11.2021, learned trial Court found that
the case of abetment is not proved against the appellant
3
but it is a case of harassment and cruelty and therefore,
convicted the appellant under Section 498A of IPC instead
of Section 306 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in
para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not
pressing the appeal so far as it relates to the conviction
part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the
sentence part thereof only. According to him, the maximum
sentence imposed on the appellant is 2 years and the
appellant has already remained in custody for 26 days. The
appellant and the deceased have two children from their
marriage who are living with the appellant. The incident
took place about 6 years ago, now if the appellant is sent
back to jail, the future of the children will be affected.
Hence, considering all theses facts, the sentence imposed
upon the appellant may be reduced to the period already
undergone by him. In support of his argument, he relied on
the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.
Venkateswaran v. State reported in (2025) SCC 578
wherein the sentence of two years imposed on the appellant
has been reduced to the period already undergone by him.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State,
supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the
arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
8. Having gone through the material available on record and
the statements of the deceased’s father Rikhiram Sahu
(PW-1), mother Daya Bai (PW-6) and Dr. J. P. Diwan (PW-
10), the involvement of the appellant in the crime in
question is clearly established. This Court does not find any
illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as
4
regards conviction of the appellant for the offence
punishable under Section 498A of IPC.
9. As regards sentence, in the case of M. Venkateswaran
(supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court, considering the facts that
the couple lived together exactly for 3 days and that after
the incident in question, victim wife married and settled
abroad, the case prolonged for a period of nearly 19 years
and the appellant remained in custody for approximately 3
months, has reduced the sentence of two years imposed on
the appellant to the period already undergone by him.
10. In the present case, the appellant stands sentenced to 2
years RI out of which he has already remained in custody
for 26 days. The appellant and the deceased lived as
husband and wife for about 14 years and out of their
wedlock two children were born who are now being brought
up by the appellant. The incident took place about 6 years
back and if the appellant is now sent back to jail, the future
of the children will be affected. Therefore, keeping in view
the aforesaid judgment, in the larger interest of justice, it
would be appropriate if the appellant is sentenced to the
period already undergone by him.
11. Accordingly the appeal is allowed in part. While
maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section
498A of IPC, his jail sentence is reduced to the period
already undergone by him i.e. 26 days days. However, the
fine imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court shall
remain intact.
12. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall continue for a
further period of six months from today in terms of Section
437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
13. Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment
5
be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary
action, if any.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
JUDGE
Khatai