Allahabad High Court
Pradeep @ Bantoo @ Shahu Sisodiya vs State Of U.P. on 22 August, 2022
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 89
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2813 of 2010
Appellant :- Pradeep @ Bantoo @ Shahu Sisodiya
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Suresh Chandra Mishra,S.N. Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State.
2. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by appellant, Pradeep @ Bantoo @ Shahu Sisodiya, against judgment and order dated 13.4.2010 passed by Sri Dilip Singh, Special Judge (D.A.A.), Agra in Special Sessions Trial No.147 of 2002, arising out of Case Crime No. 297 of 2009, convicting the accused-appellant u/s 392 IPC and sentencing him to undergo for four years rigorous imprisonment. The accused-appellant was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further simple imprisonment for two months.
3. As per the report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah dated 23.5.2022 wherein it has been referred that he has received a report from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra pertaining to completion of incarceration period of four years and payment of fine of the appellant.
Prosecution Story
4. Facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal are that the Informant is the resident of Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. Informant and his wife Shanti Devi had come to the house of his daughter at Agra. On 18.7.2002, they had gone out for marketing near Pachkuniya Chauraha, Agra and on the same day at about 08:30 PM, two unknown persons are stated to have snatched the chain from the neck of Smt. Shanti Devi, wife of informant and run away. On raising of alarm by the victim, the police personnel are stated to have chased the accused persons and caught them near the spot. The appellant and co-accused Robin Lal were identified to be the persons who robbed the chain. The informant and the accused persons were taken to the police station by the police and an FIR was lodged by the informant against them. Recovery memo was prepared at the police station regarding broken gold chain of Smt. Shanti Devi. Investigation was taken up and the charge-sheet u/s 392/411 IPC was filed in the Court. The co-accused Robin Lal was declared juvenile and his trial was separated having been tried by the Juvenile Justice Board, Agra.
5. During trial, prosecution had examined five witnesses. PW-1 Umrai Singh who is the informant, had corroborated the contents of the FIR and had even identified the appellant to be the robber. He has proved his complaint Ex.Ka-1.
6. PW-2 Smt. Shanti Devi is the victim whose chain was snatched by the appellant and the co-accused person on 18.7.2002 at 08:30 PM. She has identified the pieces of broken chain and also the memo of recovery prepared at the police station. She has, thus, corroborated the prosecution story.
7. PW-3 Constable Ram Prakash who is the independent witness, has stated that on hearing the shrieks of the victim, he along with constable Bhikam Singh had chased and caught hold of the appellant and co-accused person along with the broken chain robbed.
8. PW-4 Constable Praveen Kumar has proved the FIR as Ex.Ka-3 and G.D. of institution of FIR i.e. Ex.Ka-4. He has also corroborated the contents of Recovery Memo Ex.Ka-2, already proved by the PW-2 Smt. Shanti Devi.
9. PW-5 is the Investigating Officer Jai Singh, Sub-Inspector who has submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant and has proved the site plan as Ex.Ka-5 as well as charge-sheet as Ex.Ka-6.
10. The learned Trial Court vide impugned judgement and order dated 13.4.2010 has convicted the appellant and sentenced him of four years rigorous imprisonment in S.S.T. No.147 of 2002, State Vs. Pradeep @ Bantoo @ Shahu Sisodiya arising out of Case Crime No.297 of 2009 u/s 392 Police Station- Lohamandi, District- Agra. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further simple imprisonment of two months.
Rival Contentions
11. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the appellant has been released from jail in pursuance to the completion of the period of incarceration. Learned counsel has further stated that the appellant in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that since his father was retired police personnel and had a rivalry with the local police, has been falsely implicated in the present case out of vengeance otherwise his statement is of plain denial. The identification of robbed broken chain is not as per the law. He has further indicated several contradictions in the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the appellant have also been placed forth before the Court. Learned counsel has argued that the appellant has been acquitted u/s 411 IPC. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. He has also made an innocuous prayer that since the appellant has already served the sentence of four years and also deposited the amount of fine of Rs.5,000/- imposed on him, the appeal may be allowed on the period undergone.
12. Per contra, Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the appeal on the ground that the informant and the victim PW-2 are the residents of Bhopal and having no animosity whatsoever against the appellant. The appellant could not establish anything in his defence pertaining to his false implication. Learned AGA has further stated that the present case is an open and shut case as the appellant and co-accused Robin Lal were caught red-handed at the spot along with robbed broken chain which had been duly identified by the victim PW-2. Learned AGA has further stated that minor contradictions are bound to creep in the statement of the untutored witnesses. The victim PW-2 has deposed naturally and has identified the appellant. He has further stated that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned passed by the learned Trial Judge by convicting the appellant u/s 392 IPC.
Conclusion
13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the judgement and order of the learned Trial Court. The impugned judgement and order dated 13.4.2010 is hereby affirmed.
14. However, since the accused has already served the sentence awarded by the Trial Court and also deposited the amount of fine imposed upon him, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping this appeal pending. The case property be immediately returned to the informant.
15. In view of the above, the appeal stands dismissed.
16. Copy of this order along with lower Court record be sent to Court concerned forthwith.
Order Date :- 22.8.2022
Siddhant
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
