Chattisgarh High Court
Smt.Meena Alias Sukrita And Anr vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 May, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Revision No. 357 of 2008
1. Smt. Meena alias Sukrita, wife of Vinay alias Rajesh Pandey,
aged about 40 years, resident of Ganesh Chowk, Chingrajpara,
Sarkanda, Tahsil & Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)
2. Smt. Anjali alias Manjali, wife of Shri Jaleshwar alias Babla
Pandey, aged about 32 years, R/o Kasturba Nagar, near Sharda
Mandir, Civil Lines, Bilaspur (C.G.)
---- Revisioner/applicants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through : Police Station Akaltara, District
Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
----Respondent
For Applicants : Mr. Sameer Singh, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Lalit Jangde, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi
Order On Board
05.05.2022
1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 08.05.2008 passed by Second
Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Janjgir in Criminal Appeal No.
30/2008 upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 3.4.2008 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir in Criminal
Case No. 449/2008 whereby the accused/applicants have been convicted
for commission of offence punishable under Section 380 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous
imprisonment of one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, with default
stipulation.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.02.2008 at about
4.30 O'clock in the afternoon applicants/accused had went to Jewelery
Shop to purchase anklet in the shop of complainant and asked him to
show anklets, then complainant showed them 30 pairs of anklets of
different design. They saw the said anklets for some time and then they
left the shop saying that they will come afterwards. In the meantime, the
complainant counted the pairs of anklets then he found eight pairs worth
Rs.11,000/- of anklets missing. On being suspicion, he asked his
neighbours to chase the accused persons and after some time, both the
applicants/accused persons were caught red handed and the stolen
articles were recovered from their possession. Based on above facts,
present crime under Section 380 read with Section 34 of the IPC was
registered against the applicants. After usual investigation, charge-sheet
was filed against the accused/applicant before Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Janjgir. Charge under Section 380 IPC was framed and the same was
explained to the applicants/accused, which they denied and their plea
was recorded.
3. In order to prove the guilt of accused/applicants, the prosecution
has examined as many as six witnesses in support of its case. Statement
of the accused/applicants were also recorded under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in
the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. Apart
from this, one witness namely Dileep Kumar Sharma (DW-1) has also
been examined by the defence in support of its case.
4. Trial Magistrate, after hearing counsel appearing for the respective
parties and considering the material available on record, has convicted
and sentence the applicants/accused, as mentioned in opening
paragraph of the judgment. In an appeal preferred by the
applicants/accused, judgment passed by the trial Magistrate has been
affirmed by the appellate Court. Hence this Criminal Revision.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the accused/applicants would
submit that accused / applicants, being ladies, have already remained in
jail for the period from 25.02.2008 to 7.4.2008 & 8.5.2008 to 28.5.2008,
whereas, the sentence which has been awarded to them is of only one
year rigorous imprisonment and incident had taken place in the year 2008
and thereby more than 14 years have rolled by since then, therefore, he
is not pressing this revision as regards conviction part of the impugned
judgment and would confine his arguments to the sentence part thereof
only. He further submits that as per impugned order, fine amount
imposed upon the accused/applicants has already been deposited by
them and interest of justice would be served if the jail sentence awarded
to the accused/applicants is reduced to the period already undergone by
them.
6. To this proposition of counsel for the accused/applicants, State
Counsel has no objection.
7. Accordingly, keeping in view the fact that applicants/accused have
served out the jail sentence for the period from 25.02.2008 to 7.4.2008 &
8.5.2008 to 28.5.2008 and the offence, which has been levelled against
the accused/applicants, is not so heinous and considering the
submissions made by counsel for the accused/applicants; this court is of
the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping them in
detention any further and interest of justice would be served if they are
sentenced to the period already undergone by them.
8. In the result, the criminal revision is partly allowed. Conviction part
of the impugned judgment against the accused/applicants is maintained,
as also imposition of punishment of fine is also maintained but jail
sentence imposed upon them is reduced to the period already undergone
(i.e. 25.02.2008 to 7.4.2008 & 8.5.2008 to 28.5.2008) by them. As the
applicants are already on bail, their bail bonds stand discharged.
Sd/-
(N.K.Chandravanshi)
Judge
D/-
