Suresh Gop vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 836 Chatt

                                                                         NAFR

                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                 CRA No. 400 of 2016


   • Suresh Gop, S/o Sumbihari Gop, Aged about 22 years, Occupation -
     Mason, R/o Village-Satpara, Ghattha, P.S. - Gumla, Civil and Revenu
     District Gumla, Jharkhand.

                                                                 ---- Appellant

                                    Versus

   • State of Chhattisgarh, Through, Police Thana - Jashpur, District Jashpur
     Chhattisgarh.

                                                              ---- Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Mr. Akash Pandey, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

Judgment on Board

05/07/2021

1. By the impugned judgment dated 28.12.2015 passed in Sessions

Trial No. 54/2015 by the learned Upper Sessions Judge, Jashpur,

District Jashpur (C.G.), the Appellant has been convicted for the

offence punishable under Section 392 read with 397 of the Indian

Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10

years, and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and under Sections 25(1)(A) &

27(2) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 05 years, and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- and rigorous

imprisonment for 07 years, and to pay fine of Rs. 7000/- respectively,

with default stipulations. All the sentences to run concurrently.

2. According to the case of prosecution, on 13.01.2015, complainant

Arun Kumar Shriwastav (PW-1), Branch Manager of Chhattisgarh

Rajya Gramin Bank, Branch Manora (C.G.), made a written complaint

before Police Station- Manora, District Jashpur mentioning therein

that at about 12:55 PM, three unknown persons entered in the Bank

premises and looted Rs. 2,27,340/- from the Bank on the point of

Katta. On the basis of above, FIR has been registered vide (Ex.P/2).

Immediately after the incident, all three persons who were involved in

the said incident, caught by the villagers on spot. During test

identification parade of the Appellant and co-accused persons, they

have duly identified by the complainant and other persons. Later on

statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After

completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the

Appellant and co-accused persons namely Ravi Urav @ Ravi Kujur

and Manoj Bhagat @ Satish. Trial Court has framed the charges. To

prove the guilt of the Appellant, the prosecution has examined as

many as 20 witnesses. No defense witness has been examined by

the Appellant. Statement of the Appellant under Section 313 of the

Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his 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 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 the Appellant is in jail since

13.01.2015 and completed more than 6 ½ years out of 10 years of jail

sentence, he has no criminal antecedent and he is facing the lis for

last 6 ½ years. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to him may be

reduced to the period already undergone by him.

5. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the appeal 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 Appellant is in jail since

13.01.2015 and completed more than 6 ½ years out of 10 years of jail

sentence, he has no criminal antecedent and he is facing the lis for

last 6 ½ 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.

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

Appellant for the aforementioned Sections is affirmed and against the

conviction he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

The fine sentence for the aforementioned Sections is also affirmed.

9. It is reported that the Appellant is in jail, he be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

10. 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 Vasant/shubham