Chattisgarh High Court
Yuvraj Singh Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 February, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by AKHILESH
BEOHAR
Date: 2025.02.20
16:47:01 +0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 481 of 2016
• Yuvraj Singh Thakur, S/o Mahendra Singh Thakur, aged about 26
Years, R/o Housing Board Colony Jagdalpur, P.S. City Kotwali
Revenue and Civil Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate Bastar and the
P.S. Kotwali, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh,
...Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate
For State/Respondent : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Order on Board
20.02.2025
1. This present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of
Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 09.05.2016 passed
by Sessions Judge, Bastar, Place Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Criminal
Appeal No.03/2016, wherein the applicant has been convicted
under Section 394 read with 34 of the IPC and sentenced him to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.5,000/-,
in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six months.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.07.2015 at about
09:00 PM, complainant- Bheem Kumar Sahu (PW-01) was waiting
for bus at the bus stop, at that time, present applicant along with
other co-accused persons came there on a motorcycle and
committed marpeet with him and looted two sets of mobile phone
and cash of Rs.13,400/- from him. Thereafter, the complainant
reported the matter to the Police Station: Kotwali, District : Bastar
(C.G.), pursuant to which, FIR (Ex.P/2) was registered.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.). The
accused persons abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty.
4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence, convicted the applicant and other co-accused persons
under Section 394/34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.1,000/- each.
The said judgment was challenged by the applicant and other co-
accused persons in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court
vide judgment dated 09.05.2016, partly allowed the appeal while
upholding the conviction of the applicants, reduced their sentence
from five years R.I. to one year R.I. and enhanced the fine amount
from Rs.1,000/- to 5,000/- each. Hence, this revision.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does
not want to challenge the conviction part of the present applicant
and confines his argument to the sentence part only, which
according to him is on higher side. He further submits that the
applicant has remained in jail for 10 months and 16 days i.e. from
07.07.2015 to 26.05.2016, he has no criminal antecedents and he
is facing the lis since July, 2015. Therefore, it is prayed that the jail
sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period
already undergone by him.
6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State opposed the revision
and supported the impugned judgment.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and
perused the record minutely.
8. Considering the statements of complainant-Bheem Kumar Sahu
(PW-01), Dharma Pandey (PW-02), Gautam Sahu (PW-03), Anil
Rao (PW-04) coupled with the medical evidence of Dr. Rishabh Sao
(PW-09) and other evidence available on record, this Court is of the
opinion that the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial
Court as well as by the Appellate Court being based on the
evidence available on record is correct finding and I hereby affirm
the same.
9. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and further considering the fact that the
applicant has undergone jail sentence for a period of 10 months
and 16 days, he is facing the lis since July, 2015 and there is 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. The fine sentence is affirmed.
10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the
applicant under the aforementioned Section is affirmed and he is
sentenced to the period already undergone by him.
11. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond
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
Akhilesh
