Chattisgarh High Court
Devcharan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 November, 2022
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Revision No.39 of 2015
Devcharan S/o Shri Muniram Banjare, aged about 22 years, R/o Village-
Junwani, Police Station & Tahsil-Jaijaipur, Civil & Revenue District-
Janjgir-Champa (CG)
---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through the Station House Officer, Police Station-
Hasaud, Civil & Revenue District-Janjgir-Champa (CG)
---- Respondent
For Applicant : Mr.P.M.Shriwas, Advocate
For State/Respondent : Ms Pushplata Khalkho, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
Order on Board
30/11/2022
1. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated
21.10.2014 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge,
Sakti, District-Janjgir Champa, in Criminal Appeal No.92/2014,
whereby conviction under Section 414 of the IPC awarded by the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaijaipur in Criminal Case
No.218/2014 vide judgment dated 29.9.2014 has been altered
under Section 403 of the IPC and reduced the sentence from RI for
six months to the period already undergone by the applicant from
4.5.2014 to 21.10.2014 i.e. SI for 169 days and fine amount shall
remain intact to the tune of Rs.100/-.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Assistant Sub Inspector
D.S.Paikra (PW-5), Police Station-Hasaud, District Janjgir-Champa
on 3.5.2014 at about 17.30 p.m. received secret information that
the applicant and one other person namely Bharat Banjare were
going for selling of stolen motor cycles. On such information, the
applicant has been apprehended and Bharat Banjare absconded.
From the possession of the present applicant, one Hero Honda
Passion Plus bearing registration No.JH02 J/3780 and one Pulser
Bajaj bearing registration No.CG11 CF/3676 were seized vide
Ex.P-1. Arrest memo (Ex.P-2) was prepared. The applicant failed to
explain the possession of motor-cycles and has not produced any
documents. For other accused Bharat Banjare who has
absconded, panchnama (Ex.P-5) was prepared. Statement of the
witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge-
sheet was filed before the jurisdictional criminal Court. The
applicant abjured his guilt.
3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as
many as 5 witnesses and exhibited 7 documents Exs.P-1 to P-7.
Statement of the accused/applicant was recorded under Section
313 of the CrPC in which he has stated for false implication and
has not adduced any defence evidence nor produced any
document in his support.
4. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaijaipur upon appreciation of
oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its
judgment dated 29.09.2014 convicted the applicant for offence
under Section 414 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for six
months and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to further
undergo imprisonment for one month. In appeal preferred by the
applicant, the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, vide
judgment dated 21.10.2014 altered the conviction of the applicant
from Section 414 of the IPC to Section 403 of the IPC and
sentenced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 169 days
and fine amount shall remain intact. Against which, this criminal
revision has been preferred.
5. Mr.P.M.Shriwas, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the
judgment impugned and the judgment of the trial Court are contrary
to law. No theft property has been seized from possession of the
applicant and seizure witnesses have not supported the case of the
prosecution. So, he prays to allow the revision and acquit the
applicant.
6. Per contra, Ms Pushplata Khalkho, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State, supports the impugned judgment and submits
that the judgment is well merited, which does not call for any
interference.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records of the Courts below with utmost circumspection.
8. Assistant Sub Inspector D.S.Paikra (PW-5) has categorically stated
that during the petrolling duty on the basis of secret information that
the applicant is going for selling of stolen motor-cycles he was
apprehended and from his possession, two motor-cycles have
been seized vide Ex.P-1. The applicant failed to explain about the
possession of the said vehicles, nor produced any documents. So
the offence has been registered. In cross-examination of this
witness, nothing has been elicited which discredited his testimony.
9. It is well settled law that official witnesses are also reliable
witnesses and only because seizure witnesses have turned hostile,
their testimony cannot discarded.
10. The Supreme Court in the matter of Tahir v. State (Delhi)
reported in (1996) 3 SCC 338 held as under:-
"6....In our opinion no infirmity attaches to the testimony of
police officials, merely because they belong to the police
force and there is no rule of law or evidence which lays down
that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the
police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some
independent evidence. The Rule of Prudence, however, only
requires a more careful scrutiny of the evidence, since they
can be said to be interested in the result of the case
projected by them. Where the evidence of the police officials,
after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be
trustworthy and reliable, it can from basis of conviction and
the absence of some independent witness of the locality to
lend corroboration to their evidence does not in any way
affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case. "
11.In that view of the matter, the appellate Court has not committed
any illegality or infirmity in the judgment impugned warranting
interference by this Court. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of
merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
12. It is stated at the Bar that the applicant has already suffered
the sentence and fine amount has already been deposited.
Therefore, no further order is required to be passed.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Judge
B/-
