Chattisgarh High Court
Prakash Vaishnav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 February, 2023
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Revision No. 311 of 2014
Prakash Vaishnav S/o Shri Santosh Vaishnav Aged About 24
Years R/o Shyam Nagar Lingyadih P.S. Sarkanda, District
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
----Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Bilaspur, District
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
----Non-applicant
For Applicant : Ms. Chetana Pandey and Mr. Dheerendra
Pandey, Advocates.
For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Anil Tripathi, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
15-02-2023
1.
This Criminal Revision is filed against the judgment dated
22.04.2014, passed by the learned Fourth Additional Sessions
Judge to the Court of learned First Additional Sessions Judge,
Bilaspur, District Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No.21/2014, whereby
the appeal preferred by the applicant has been dismissed and the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the
learned Special Railway Magistrate, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No.
1071 of 2012 dated 9.1.2013 has been affirmed. The applicant
and one co-accused were convicted under Section 379/ 34 of the
IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 6-6 months and to pay fine of
Rs.1,000 - 1,000/-, respectively, and in default of payment of fine,
further RI for 2 - 2 months by the trial Court.
2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that, on 4.4.2012, complainant
- Ramsingh Netam (PW-2) lodged a written complaint to the
police station regarding theft of his mobile phone. He has stated
that while he was taking railway train ticket from counter, the
present applicant and another co-accused, namely, Deepak Sarthi
committed theft of mobile phone and they were caught on the
spot. On such complaint, the police registered FIR on the same
day for the offence punishable under Section 379 read with
Section 34 of the IPC vide Ex.P/3. The mobile phone was seized
from possession of co-accused - Deepak Sarthi vide Ex.P/1. After
completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the
police before the concerned trial Court.
3. Learned trial Court framed charge for offence punishable under
Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused
persons. The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution examined as many as 4 witnesses and exhibited
5 documents in support of the case, whereas, no defence witness
was examined by the applicant. The statement of the applicant
under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded. The learned trial
Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence,
convicted the present applicant as mentioned in the opening
paragraph.
4. The applicant preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions
Court against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
recorded by the learned trial Court, which in turn, has been
dismissed affirming the conviction and sentence, against which the
present criminal revision has been preferred.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant
has falsely been implicated in the case, he has not committed any
offence; he has already served more than 80 days of jail sentence,
out of 6 months and fine amount has already been deposited. She
would further submit that if this Court affirms the conviction then
the sentence imposed upon the applicant may be reduced to the
period already undergone by him as the incident had taken place
in the year 2012.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the
submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.
7. The applicant and another co-accused committed theft of mobile
phone on 4.4.2012 and he alongwith one another co-accused
were caught red-handed by the police at the place of incident
itself. The mobile was seized from the possession of co-accused -
Deepak Sarthi. Aditya Narayan Goutam (PW-1) is a seizure
witness; though he has been declared hostile but he has admitted
his signature on seizure memo (Ex.P/1). Ramsingh Netam (PW-2)
is a Peon, who is the complainant, and on his written report, FIR
was lodged. Hemlal Netam (PW-3) was in the company of the
complainant and he has supported the case of the prosecution.
He is a seizure witness, though he has been declared hostile but
he has admitted his signature over seizure memo (Ex.P/1).
Barnuram Majre (PW-4), Investigating Officer, has conducted the
investigation. From evidence of witnesses and the exhibited
documents, it appears that the theft of mobile was committed by
the present applicant alongwith another co-accused and the same
was seized on the spot from the possession of co-accused. The
applicant and another co-accused were caught red-handed.
Ramsingh Netam (PW-2), the complainant, has supported the
case of the prosecution.
8. Considering the fact that the present applicant was caught red-
handed alongwith co-accused, I am of the opinion that the Courts
below have not committed any infirmity in convicting the present
applicant for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and
therefore, that part of the judgment is hereby affirmed.
9. Now, considering the next submission of learned counsel for
modification of sentence. Learned Courts below have sentenced
the present applicant to undergo RI for 6 months. Considering the
fact that the incident had taken place in the year 2014, the
applicant has already suffered about 83 days of jail sentence; and
at the date of incident he was aged about 24 years, I am of the
opinion that the sentence imposed upon the applicant can be
reduced, therefore, taking into consideration the above aspect,
sentence part is modified and same is reduced from R.I. for
6 months to the period already undergone by the applicant.
10. With the aforesaid observation(s), this criminal revision is
disposed off.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Nimmi
