Amitabh Divya vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1285 Chatt

                                                                      NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                             CRA No. 952 of 2017

      Amitabh Divya S/o Sonau Divya, Aged About 28 Years, Caste
       Satnami, R/o Village Ghivra, Police Station Birra, District Janjgir-
       Champa, Chhattisgarh.

                                                              ---- Appellant

                                    Versus

      State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Birra, District
       Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh.

                                                           ---- Respondent

For Appellant :Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For State/Respondent :Mr. Ravi Maheshwari, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Judgment on Board 22.07.2021

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated

17.03.2017 passed in Session Trial No.112/2016 by the

learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

wherein, the Appellant has been convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 394 of the IPC and sentenced to

undergo RI for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, with

default stipulation.

2. According to the case of prosecution, complainant Neeka Bai

(PW-1), lodged a report in concerned Police Station to the

effect that on 15.05.2016 at around 8:00 AM, when she went

to her field, at that time the Appellant was present on spot, he

came near to her, assaulted her and looted golden chain and golden ear rings from her and ran away from the spot. On the

basis of said report, offence has been registered. During

course of investigation, the looted articles were seized from

the possession of the Appellant which were also identified by

the complainant. Later on statements of 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 Appellant. To robe the Appellant in the

crime-in-question, the prosecution has examined as many as

10 witnesses. In the statement of the Appellant recorded

under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, he has pleaded his innocence

and false implication in the matter, however, no defence

witness was examined by the Appellant. After completion of

trial, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as

mentioned in Para 01 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant 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

looted articles is amounting to rupees twenty thousand only

and injuries of the complainant was also simple in nature. The

Counsel lastly submits that the Appellant is in jail since

16.05.2016 and completed more than 5 years of jail sentence,

he has no criminal antecedent and has facing the lis from last

five years. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the

Appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

4. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the appeal

and supported the impugned judgment.

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

parties and perused the record minutely.

6. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case,

particularly considering the fact that the Appellant is in jail

since 16.05.2016 and completed more than 5 years of jail

sentence, he has no criminal antecedent and has facing the

lis from last five years. I am of the view that the ends of justice

would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon

the Appellant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to

the period already undergone by him.

7. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of

the Appellant under Section 394 of the IPC is affirmed and

against the conviction he is sentenced to the period already

undergone by him. The fine sentence for the above offence is

also affirmed.

8. 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