Chattisgarh High Court
Chandan Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 August, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 1853 of 2017
1. Chandan Singh, S/o Muni Singh Rajput, aged about 21 years, R/o Village
Bhakura, Police Station - Mukasil, District Aara (Bihar).
2. Harendra Kumar @ Prince, S/o Ramchandra Yadav, aged about 19
years, R/o Laxman Nagar, Police Station Muksil, District Aara (Bihar).
---- Appellants
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh Through Station In-charge Officer, Police Station
Katghora, District - Korba, (C.G.)
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Shri Brijesh Singh, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Shri Sushil Sahu, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
Order on Board
16/08/2021
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated
30/10/2017 passed in Sessions Trial No. 20/2017 by the Court of
Additional Judge to the Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District
Korba, (C.G.), whereby appellants have been convicted under Section
394 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10
years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation.
2. Facts
of the case are that on 05.02.2017, complainant Ratan Singh
(Driver of the trailer) along with his helper were coming from Darri to
Dipka after unloading their trailer. At about 1:00 A.M. when they
reached at village Chhuri, allegedly, appellants and other co-accused
persons came in a car and overtake the trailer of the complainant and
stopped the vehicle of the complainant. Thereafter, all the appellants
on the tip of knife looted cash of Rs.4,500/- from the pocket of the
complainant and also looted papers of trailer and ran away from car.
Thereafter, matter was reported by the complainant and on the basis
of the said, offence has been registered. Statement of
complainant/injured as well as other witnesses were recorded. After
completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. Trial Court
framed the charges. As many as 6 prosecution witnesses have been
examined. No defence witness has been examined. Statement of the
appellants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C has been recorded,
wherein they have pleaded innocence and false implication in the
matter.
3. After trial, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as
mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that he does
not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument to
the sentence part only. He further submits that the appellants have
looted only Rs.4,500/- and they have undergone about 4 ½ months out
of total jail sentence of 10 years, they have no criminal antecedent and
they are facing the lis since 2017, therefore, he prays that the jail
sentence awarded to the appellants may be reduced to the period
already undergone by them.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the State supported the
impugned judgment and submits that the sentence awarded by the
trial Court is just and proper and requires no interference.
6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and
perused the record minutely.
7. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly considering that out of total jail sentence of 10 years,
appellants have undergone about 4 ½ months, they are facing the lis
since 2017 and there is no criminal antecedent against them, I am of
the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the
conviction imposed upon the appellants, the jail sentenced awarded to
them is reduced to the period already undergone by them.
8. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the
appellants under the aforementioned section is affirmed and they are
sentenced to the period already undergone by them. The fine
sentence is affirmed.
9. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this
order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge
Prakash
