Krishn Kumar Yadaw vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 618 Chatt

                                      -1-




                                                                          NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                             CRR No. 565 of 2016

      Krishn Kumar Yadaw S/o Jodhan Yadaw Aged About 24 Years R/o
      Village - Ramsama, Thana Narayanpur, Distt. Jashpur, Civil And
      Revenue Distt. - Jashpur Chhattisgarh.
                                                                 ---- Applicant
                                   Versus
      State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kansabel Distt. Jashpur
      Chhattisgarh.
                                                              ---- Respondent

For Applicant                    : Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondent/State             : Shri Jitendra Shukla, P.L.

                Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

                             Order on Board
31-01-2023

1. This revision petition is filed against the judgment passed by the learned

Sessions Judge, Jashpur in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2016 dated

8.6.2016 whereby the appeal preferred by the applicant has been partly

allowed by modifying the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagicha and

reducing the sentence for the offence punishable under Section 420 of

the Indian Penal Code from 3 years to 2 years of RI and to pay fine of

Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 1 month.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 4.8.2014, while

complainant - Umesh Paikra was proceeding to his house from Tehsil

office on his motorcycle, the applicant requested for lift, but

unfortunately, the engine of the motorcycle stopped working, then, the

present applicant took the motorcycle to start the engine and thereafter,

he ran away alongwith it. A written complaint was lodged by Umesh

Painkra (PW-1) vide Ex.P/1 and consequently, FIR (Ex.P/2) was

registered on 4.8.2014 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of

the IPC against unknown person. The applicant was identified by the

complainant vide Ex.P/9 in presence of the Executive Magistrate,

Kansabel. The vehicle was seized from the possession of the present

applicant vide Ex.P/5. Registration and insurance certificates were

seized from the complainant vide Ex.P/4. After completion of the

investigation, police filed the charge-sheet for the offence punishable

under Section 420 of the IPC. Learned trial Court framed charge against

the applicant, who in turn, abjured the charges and pleaded not guilty.

The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 13

documents to prove the guilt of the applicant. No defence witness was

examined by the applicant. The statement under Section 313 of the

Cr.P.C. of the applicant was recorded. Learned trial Court after

appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and

sentenced the applicant as mentioned in the opening paragraph. The

applicant preferred the appeal before the learned Sessions Court, who

in turn, dismissed the same, however, reduced the sentence from 3

years to 2 years while affirming the other part of sentence, against which

the applicant has preferred the instant criminal revision.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that from the contents of

the FIR, it appears that, it is a case of theft whereas, the applicant has

been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC,

but none of the ingredients of Section 420 of the IPC are present in the

case. He would further submit that the motorcycle was seized from the

possession of the present applicant. He would also pray for acquittal of

the applicant and to allow this criminal revision. In the alternative, he

would submit that the applicant has already suffered 116 days in jail,

therefore, if this Court holds the applicant guilty, his sentence be

reduced to the period already undergone by him.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the

submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. He would

further submit that there is concurrent finding recorded by the learned

two Courts below and there is no scope for interference.

5. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the

record with utmost circumspection.

6. On the date of incident i.e. on 4.8.2014, the applicant was going to his

house from Tehsil office on his motorcycle, where the applicant took the

lift. The engine of the motorcycle of the applicant got stopped and

thereafter, the present applicant took the bike to start its engine and

when its engine got started, he ran away with it. Thereafter, FIR was

lodged on the same day for the offence punishable under Section 379 of

the IPC. From the record, it appears that the present applicant was

identified by the complainant in the identification parade conducted by

the Executive Magistrate, Govind Singh (PW-6). The bike was

recovered from the possession of the present applicant vide Ex.P/9.

The applicant has proved the contents of FIR and the allegations made

therein against the present applicant and the police officials have also

proved the seizure etc., therefore, I am of the opinion that there is no

infirmity with regard to findings recorded by both the Courts below

recording therein conviction for the offence punishable under Section

420 of the IPC against the present applicant. Therefore, the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence against the applicant recorded by the

two Courts below is hereby affirmed.

7. Considering the next question regarding sentence, it is not in dispute

that the motorcycle was seized from the possession of the applicant, the

applicant has remained in jail for 116 days whereas, the maximum

punishment is 2 years, no minimum sentence is provided under Section

420 of the IPC and the incident had taken place in the year 2014,

therefore, considering all these aspects, I am inclined to reduce the

sentence part from 2 years to the period already undergone by the

applicant affirming the other part of the sentence.

8. Accordingly, the criminal revision is partly allowed.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi