Chattisgarh High Court
Kanhaiya Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 April, 2025
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 136 of 2011
Kanhaiya Sahu, aged about 33 years, S/o Baratu Sahu, Occupation - Labour, R/o
Village Basula, P.S. - Ghumka, Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
... Applicant
Digitally
versus
signed by
ANJANI State Of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate, Kawardha, District Kabirdham
KUMAR
ALLENA (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant
Date:
2025.04.03
10:36:27
+0530 For Applicant : Ms. Neelu Singh, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri
F.S.Khare, Advocate
For Non-applicant : Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer
(HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)
Order on Board
02/04/2025
Heard.
1.
The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed
against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
25.1.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kabirdham
(Kawardha) C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.23/2009, whereby the
applicant's appeal has been dismissed while affirming the judgment
dated 08.07.2009 passed in Criminal Case No.625/2006 by the C.J.M.
convicting the applicant under Section 5 of the Explosive Substance
Act and sentencing him to RI for one year with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in
default thereof, further RI for 4 months.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that 28.03.2006 at about 10:30 am
on the basis of informer's information, S.M.Singh, A.S.I of Police
Station Sahaspur Lohara stopped and checked the applicant near
village RanjitpurTiraha, as he was found carrying a plastic gunny bag
and as soon as the bag was opened, the police found some explosive
materilas like gunpowder weighing 20 kgs, 114 detonators, 4 bundles
of wire, which was seized from his possession as no documents
thereof were produced by the applicant. Thereafter, the concerned
Police registered a case against the applicant under Section 5 of the
Explosive Substances Act under Crime No.61/2007 and started
investigation.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Kabirdham, before whom, the applicant abjured the
charge and pleaded non-guilty.
4. The Court of CJM and appellate Court, after appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as
mentioned in Para 1 of this order. Hence, this revision.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that she does not want to
challenge the conviction part of the applicant but confines her
argument to the sentence part only, which according to her, is on
higher side. She further submits that the applicant has remained in jail
for six months and 10 days, out of the jail sentence of one year, i.e.
from 29.03.2006 to 24.08.2006 and again from 25.01.2011 to
11.03.2011, he has no criminal antecedents and he is facing the lis
since March, 2006, i.e. for more than 19 years. She also submits that
applicant is a villager and is doing labour work and that, fine amount
has been deposited. On these premises, she urged that the jail
sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period
already undergone by him.
6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision and
supported the impugned judgment.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and
perused the record.
8. Considering the statement of PW-8 S.M.Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police
Station Kawardha coupled with the medical evidence of PW-9
P.P.Singh, Subedar Major and the other evidence and material
available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding
recorded by the learned trial Court as well as the Appellate Court being
based on the evidence available on record is a correct finding and I
hereby affirm the said finding of conviction of applicant.
9. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances
of the case and also considering the fact that the applicant has
undergone jail sentence for a period of six months and 10 days, he is
facing the lis since March, 2006 i.e. for more than 19 years, there are
no criminal antecedents against him, I am of the view that the ends of
justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon
the applicant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period
already undergone by him.
10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining
conviction of the applicant under Section 5 of the Explosive Substance
Act, the sentence imposed thereunder by the trial Court as well as the
Appellate Court is hereby modified and he is sentenced to the period
already undergone by him. The fine sentence is affirmed.
11. It is reported that the applicant is on bail. His bail bonds are not
discharged at this stage and the same shall remain operative for a
further period of six months in light of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal)
JUDGE
Anjani
