Chattisgarh High Court
Yashwant Diwan & Another vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 August, 2021
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 1592 of 2016
Somendra @ Somy Dhruv S/o Kripal Singh Dhruv, Aged About
19 Years R/o Village- Sonpairi, Police Station- Magarload, Civil
And Revenue District- Dhamtari Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police
Station- Magarload, District- Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
And
CRA No. 492 of 2017
Devkumar S/o Radheshyam Sahu, Aged About 33 Years R/o
Village Saunpairi, Police Station Magarlod, District Dhamtari,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police
Station Magarlod, Civil And Revenue District Dhamtari,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
And
CRA No. 999 of 2017
1. Yashwant Diwan S/o Maniram Diwan, Aged About 19 Years R/o
Village Sonepari, Police Station Magarload, District Dhamtari,
Chhattisgarh.
2. Vasudev Diwan S/o Panehuram Diwan, Aged About 35 Years R/o
Village Sonepari, Police Station Magarload, District Dhamtari,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellants
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Magarload, District
Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
And
CRA No. 199 of 2018
Bhojram Nishad S/o Rohit Nishad Aged About 25 Years R/o
Village Rakadih P. S. Magarload, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through P. S. Magarload, District Dhamtari
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
For Appellant (in CRA No. 1592/2016) :Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate.
For Appellant (in CRA No. 492/2017) :Ms. Ranjana Jaiswal, Advocate.
For Appellants (in CRA No. 999/2017) :Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate.
For Appellant (in CRA No. 199/2018) :Mr. Badruddin Khan, Advocate.
For State/Respondent :Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Dy. A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
Judgment on Board
17.08.2021
1. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment
dated 21.11.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No.25/2016 by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari, Distt.
Dhamtari(C.G.) wherein, the Appellants have been convicted
for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 294, 323,
506B, 354A, 354B, 384, 385 & 395 of the IPC and Section 67
of the IT Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 month and to
pay fine of Rs. 500/-, RI for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.
500/-, RI for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, RI for 2
years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, RI for 3 years and to pay
fine of Rs. 1,000/-, RI for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.
1,000/-, RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, RI for 2
years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, RI for 10 years and to
pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and RI for 3 years and to pay fine of
Rs. 20,000/- respectively, with default stipulations. All the jail
sentences to be run concurrently.
2. According to the case of prosecution, on 04.05.2015, when
complainant and one Bhopal Sahu were going to their sister's
house for attending marriage ceremony allegedly while going
to Navagaon, the Appellants have stopped them near
Sonpairi at about 2:30 PM, by abusing Bhopal, they snatched
his mobile and Rs. 20 and outraged the modesty of the
complainant which was recorded in mobile phone and also
looted Rs. 1,000/- from her and finally after giving threats, the
Appellants fled away from the spot. Both the complainants
went to Navagaon and attended the marriage ceremony and
not informed the incident to anyone. However, when the
complainant came to know that video recording of the incident
is circulated in whatsapp, then the complainant lodged FIR on
07.06.2015 against the Appellants on the basis of which,
offence has been registered against the Appellants. Later on
statements of the complainant and witnesses recorded under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation,
charge-sheet was filed by the Police. Trial Court framed the
charges against the Appellants. To robe the Appellants in the
crime-in-question, the prosecution has examined as many as
12 witnesses. In the statements of the Appellants recorded
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, they have pleaded their
innocence and false implication in the matter, however, no
defence witness was examined by the Appellants.
3. After completion of trial, Trial Court convicted and sentenced
the Appellants as mentioned in Para 01 of this judgment.
Hence, these appeals.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submit that
they do not want to press these appeals on merits and
confine their arguments to the sentence part only. They
further submit that the Appellants are in jail since 08.06.2015,
they have no criminal antecedents and they are facing the lis
since 2015. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to them may
be reduced to the period already undergone by them.
5. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the appeals
and supported the impugned judgment.
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 the fact that the Appellants are in jail
since 08.06.2015, they have no criminal antecedents and they
are facing the lis since 2015. I am of the view that the ends of
justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction
imposed upon the Appellants, the jail sentence awarded to
them is reduced to the period already undergone by them.
8. Consequently, the appeals are partly allowed. The conviction
of the Appellants under Sections 341, 294, 323, 506B, 354A,
354B, 384, 385 & 395 of the IPC and Section 67 of the IT Act
is affirmed and against the conviction, they are sentenced to
the period already undergone by them. The fine sentences for
the above offence is also 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
Shubham
