Keshav Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 2014 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Keshav Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 February, 2025

                                                        1




                                                                                       NAFR

                          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                            CRR No. 282 of 2016

             Keshav Sahu S/o Gokul Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Ramgarh, Police
Digitally
signed by    Station Mungeli, Civil And Revenue District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh,
ANJANI
KUMAR                                                                             ... Petitioner
ALLENA
Date:                                               versus
2025.02.20
16:54:34     State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mungeli,
+0530
             District Mugeli Chhattisgarh
                                                                                  ... Respondent

For Petitioner : Shri Amit Kumar Sahu appears on behalf of Shri Raj Kumar Pali, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Smt. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer.

(HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)

Order on Board

19/02/2025 Heard.

1. The applicant has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with

Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 18.03.2016 passed by the the

Court Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli in

Criminal Appeal No.33/10 whereby the judgment dated 30.10.2010 passed by

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli in Criminal Case No.132/1997 convicting

the applicant under Sections 457 and 380 IPC and sentencing him to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for 6-6 months with fine of Rs.500/- and in default to pay fine

amount, to further undergo RI for one month on each count, was affirmed while

directing to run sentences concurrently.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant, after lurking house

trespass committed theft of golden and silver ornaments and cash of Rs.6,000/- in

the dwelling house of complainant - Rajesh Jaiswal when he went to Pandariya to

attend marriage function of his brother's daughter. On a complaint being made by

the complainant, a report was lodged and during investigation, the applicant was

taken into custody and then on his memorandum statement, stolen property was

seized. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicant, who

abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty.

3. Learned court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence,

convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this

judgment. The said judgment was challenged by the applicants in criminal appeal,

however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 18.03.2016, dismissed the

appeal upholding the judgment of the JMFC. Hence, this revision.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not

challenge the conviction of the applicant, but challenging the finding of sentence

part, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that applicant

remained in jail for one month and thirteen days, i.e., from 15.02.1997 to 15.03.1997

and again from 18.03.2016 till 30.03.2016, he is facing the lis since February, 1997

i.e. for more than 28 years. Lastly, he submits that fine amount has been deposited.

Therefore, it is prayed by counsel for the applicant that the jail sentence awarded to

applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

5. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision and supported

the impugned judgment.

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused

the record.

7. Considering the statements of P.W.1 Rajesh Jaiswal. P.W.2 Manorama, P.W.3

Devkali, P.W.4 Sunil Jaiswal and P.W.5 Ashok Soni and other evidence and material

available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the

Court of JMFC Court and affirmed by by the Appellate Court, being based on the

evidence available on record, is a correct finding. Therefore, I hereby affirm the said

finding of conviction of the applicant.

8. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances of the

case and further considering the fact that the applicant remained in jail for one

month and thirteen days, has no criminal antecedents and is facing the lis since

February 1997 i.e. for more than 28 years, I am of the view that the ends of justice

would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon applicant, the jail

sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period of 1 month and 13 days, which

was already undergone by him. However, the fine amount with default sentence

imposed by the Court of JMFC as well as Appellate Court for the aforesaid offence

and that of direction to run sentences concurrently shall remain intact

9. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant

under the aforementioned Sections is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period

already undergone by him.

10. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall

remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section

437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/-

(Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE

Anjani