Raju Khan vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 718 Chatt

                                                  1

                                                                                             NAFR

                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                            Criminal Revision No.252 of 2010

Kadar Khan, S/o Sher Khan, aged about 20 years, R/o Village Khatta, Police
Station Tumgaon, District Mahasamund (C.G.)
                                                             ---- Applicant

                                              Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Mahasamund, Distt.
Mahasamund (C.G.)
                                                      ---- Non-applicant

                                               AND

                            Criminal Revision No.253 of 2010

Raju Khan, S/o Rasul Khan, aged about 23 years, R/o Village Khatta
Chowki, Patewa, Police Station Tumgaon, District Mahasamund (C.G.)
                                                           ---- Applicant

                                              Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Mahasamund, Distt.
Mahasamund (C.G.)
                                                      ---- Non-applicant

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Applicants: Mr. Shubham Tripathi, Advocate. For State/non-applicant: Mr. Afroz Khan, Panel Lawyer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order On Board

03/02/2023

1. Since common question of law and fact is involved in both the

revisions, arising out of common judgment dated 13-5-2010 passed by

the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, they have been

clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this

common order.

2. Two applicants herein have been convicted by the trial Court for

offences under Sections 365 read with Section 34, 323 read with

Section 34 & 447 of the IPC and they are sentenced as under: -

Accused/applicant Kadar Khan

Conviction Sentence

Sec. 365 read with Sec. 34 RI for 1 year & fine of ₹ 200/-, in default, of the IPC additional simple imprisonment for 20 days

Sec. 323 read with Section RI for 3 months & fine of ₹ 200/-, in 34 of the IPC default, additional simple imprisonment for 20 days

Section 447 of the IPC RI for one month

Accused/applicant Raju Khan

Conviction Sentence

Sec. 365 read with Sec. 34 RI for 1 year & fine of ₹ 200/-, in default, of the IPC additional simple imprisonment for 20 days

The judgment of the trial Court has been confirmed by the appellate

Court in appeal against which these revisions have been preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is no evidence

on record to convict the two applicants for the offences in question

and conviction has been made on the basis of surmises and

conjectures, as such, their conviction deserves to be set aside. In

alternative, learned counsel submits that applicant Kadar Khan

remained in jail for 108 days and applicant Raju Khan remained in jail

for 109 days, therefore, they be sentenced to the period already

undergone by them.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes both the revisions.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival

submissions made herein-above and also went through the record

with utmost circumspection.

6. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on

record has clearly recorded a finding that the two applicants abducted

Shiv Kumar & Govind Giri and wrongly confined them for the purpose

of extracting money and also they caused simple hurt to them and

thereby committed the offence which has been found proved by the

appellate Court. The finding recorded by the two Courts below that

the applicants abducted and wrongly confined Shiv Kumar & Govind

Giri and also caused simple hurt to Govind Giri is a finding of fact

based on the evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor

contrary to the record and I hereby affirm the conviction of the

applicants.

7. Now, the question of sentence comes in. Applicant Kadar Khan has

been sentenced to undergo RI for one year & fine of ₹ 200/- under

Section 365 read with Section 34 of the IPC; RI for three months &

fine of ₹ 200/- under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC; and

RI for one month under Section 447 of the IPC. Applicant Raju Khan

has been sentenced to undergo RI for one year & fine of ₹ 200/- under

Section 365 read with Section 34 of the IPC. In my considered

opinion, considering the date of offence i.e. 15-6-2005, more than 17

years had already elapsed and applicant Kadar Khan remained in jail

for 108 days and applicant Raju Khan remained in jail for 109 days,

therefore, ends of justice would serve if the period already undergone

by them i.e. 108 days & 109 days is awarded to them. As such,

maintaining the conviction, the applicants are hereby sentenced to the

period already undergone by them. The criminal revisions are allowed

in part to the extent indicated herein-above.

Sd/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma