Lakesh @ Lokesh Dhruv vs The State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3169 Chatt

                                    1

                                                                   NAFR

        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                   Judgment Reserved on 27.04.2022

                   Judgment Delivered on 02.05.2022

                         CRA No. 1192 of 2021

    Lakesh @ Lokesh Dhruv, S/o Bharat Ram Dhruv, aged about 25
      Years, R/o Village - Sonepari, P.S. - Magarload, District -
      Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh).

                                                            ---- Appellant

                                Versus

    The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station - Magarload,
      District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

                                                         ---- Respondent

For Appellant Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate. For State Mr. Shreshta Gupta, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya CAV Judgment

1. This appeal has 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.), whereby the Appellant has been convicted

for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 294, 323,

506B, 354A, 354B, 384, 385 & 395 of the Indian Penal Code

(for short "IPC") and Section 67 of IT Act and sentenced to

undergo R.I. for 1 month and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, R.I. for 3

months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, R.I. for 1 year and to

pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of

Rs. 1,000/-, R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-,

R.I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, R.I. for 3 years

and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, R.I. for 2 years and to pay a

fine of Rs. 1,000/-, R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.

5,000/- and R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-

respectively, with default stipulations. All jail sentences were

directed to run concurrently.

2. According to case of the prosecution, on 04.05.2015 while the

complainant- Ku. Niti Dhrue and one Bhopal Sahu were going

to their sister's house for attending marriage ceremony

allegedly while going to Navagaon, the appellant and other

co-accused persons stopped them near Sonepari at about

2:30 PM, by abusing Bhopal Sahu, they snatched his mobile

and Rs.20 and outraged the modesty of the complainant- Ku.

Niti Dhrue which was recorded in mobile phone and also

looted Rs. 1,000/- from her and finally after giving threats, the

appellant along with other co-accused persons fled away from

the spot. Thereafter, both the complainant went to Navagaon

and attended the marriage ceremony and did not inform the

incident to anyone. However, when the complainant- Ku. Niti

Dhrue came to know that video recording of the incident has

been circulated in whatsapp, then the complainant went to the

police station and lodged FIR Ex.P-2 on 07.06.2015 against

the appellant and other co-accused persons on the basis of

which, offence has been registered against the appellant and

other co-accused persons. Later on statements of the

complainant and other witnesses were recorded under

Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation,

charge-sheet was filed by the Police under Sections 341, 294,

323, 506(II), 354A, 354 B, 384, 385 read with 34 of IPC and

Section 66 of IT Act. Trial Court framed the charges against

the appellant and other co-accused persons 341, 294, 323,

506B, 354A, 354B, 384, 385, 395 read with 34 of IPC and

Section 67 of IT Act. To robe the appellant in the crime-in-

question, the prosecution has examined as many as 12

witnesses. Statement of the Appellant was 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.

3. After completion of trial, Trial Court convicted and sentenced

the Appellant as mentioned in Para 01 of this judgment.

Hence, this appeal.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that

though he has raised various grounds in the memo of appeal

challenging the conviction as well as the sentence part,

however, he is now confining his argument only to the

sentence part. He further submits that the Appellant is in jail

since 08.06.2015 and he has no criminal antecedents. He

also submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has

already allowed the appeals in part of the co-accused persons

in this case namely Somendra @ Somy Dhruv, Devkumar,

Yashwant Diwan, Vasudev Diwan and Bhojram Nishad vide

judgment dated 17.08.2021 in CRA No.1592 of 2016, CRA

No.492 of 2017, CRA No.999 of 2017 and CRA No.199 of

2018 respectively where conviction of the co-accused persons

have been affirmed and they are sentenced to the period

already undergone by them while maintaining the fine amount.

Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the present appellant

may also 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. Though, learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged

the conviction of the appellant and has assailed only the

sentence part, however, it is duty of the Court to decide the

appeal on merits on the basis of material available on record

even in absence of challenge by the appellant to the

conviction part.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the

evidence of PW-1 Ku. Niti Dhruv, PW-2 Bhopal Sahu, who is

the eye-witness to the incident, PW-3 Lata Dhurv and other

witnesses also supported the prosecution case, the evidence

available on record, the findings recorded by the trial Court

after due appreciation of the overall evidence available on

record, the fact that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has

already allowed the appeals in part of the co-accused persons

namely Somendra @ Somy Dhruv, Devkumar, Yashwant

Diwan, Vasudev Diwan and Bhojram Nishad vide judgment

dated 17.08.2021, the appellant is in jail since 08.06.2015 i.e.

for the last 6 years and 10 months, he has no criminal

antecedent, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice

would be served if he is sentenced to the period already

undergone by him while keeping the fine amount with default

sentence as imposed by the trial Court intact.

9. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining

the substantive jail sentence as well as the fine sentence with

default stipulation imposed on the appellant by the trial Court

under Sections 341, 294, 323, 506-B, 354A, 384, 385 of IPC

and Section 67 of IT Act, the substantive jail sentence

imposed upon the appellant under Sections 354-B and 395 of

IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him while

keeping the fine sentence with default stipulation thereunder

intact.

10. The appellant is reported to be in jail, therefore, he is

directed to be released forthwith, if not required to be detained

in connection with any other offence.

11. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy

of this order forthwith for information and necessary

compliance.

-Sd/-

(Gautam Chourdiya) Judge

Akhilesh