Chattisgarh High Court
Raghav Soni vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 January, 2025
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally
signed by CRR No. 5 of 2011
ANJANI
KUMAR
ALLENA Raghav Soni, S/o Ramswarup Soni, aged about 22 years, R/o Mini Basti,
Date:
2025.01.13 Jarhabhata, P.S. Civil Lines, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (CG)
17:43:03
+0530 ... Petitioner
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate, District Korba (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Petitioner : Shri Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer.
(HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)
Order on Board
13/01/2025
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 21.12.2010 passed in
Criminal Appeal No.117/2010 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (CG)
whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal, while upholding judgment dated
13.07.2010 in Criminal Case No.676/2009 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur
convicting the applicant under Sections 457 & 380 IPC and sentencing him to
undergo RI for 6 months and fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to undergo further RI
for one month on each count while making it clear to run the sentences
concurrently.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant - Omkar Kashyap,
who was working as Munshi under the employment of Contractor Rajendra
Bhandari, lodged a complaint on 07.04.2009 in the Police Station Sarkanda stating
therein that his Contractor has given him a sum of Rs.71,200/- for the purpose of
labour payment, out of which, he paid Rs.52,100/- to the labourers and rest of the
amount of Rs.19,100/- was kept in his house in a bag and at 11.00 pm, after having
dinner, he slept, at the same time, the applicant, who was working as Security
Guard at the same Contractor and was also on duty on the date of incident, stolen
the property kept in the Bag. Thereafter, the complaint woke up at 4.00 am and saw
the light was on and shattered the materials and also found missing of amount kept
in Bag and then came out and saw the applicant running away. On basis of his
report, concerned Police Station Sarkanda lodged the F.I.R. for the offence
punishable under Sections 457 & 380 IPC and during investigation, the present
applicant was apprehended and the stolen property was seized from him
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur. The applicant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence.
4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence,
convicted and sentenced him as shown in para 1. The said judgment was
challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide
judgment dated 21.12.2010 has dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment
passed by the CJM as mentioned in opening para. Hence, this revision.
5. 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 during trial,
the applicant was in jail from 09.04.2009 to 28.04.2009 and again from 21.12.2010
to 12.01.2011, in this way, the applicant incarcerated jail sentence for a period of 44
days. He has no criminal antecedents and is facing the lis since 2009, i.e. for more
than 15 years and that the applicant was 22 years old at the time of incident.
Besides above, he submits that fine amount has been deposited. On these
premises, he urged that the applicant may be sentenced to the period already
undergone by him.
6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision while supporting
the impugned judgment
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused
the record minutely.
8. Considering the evidence of complainant P.W.1 Omkar Kashyap
(Complainant), P.W.2 Ramnath Jaiswal, P.W.3 Bedram Sahu, P.W.4 Shiv Singh
P.W.5 Head Constable Ghanshyam Marco and other material documents available
on record, I am of the view that both the trial Court as well as appellate Court have
rightly convicted the applicant and I hereby affirm the same.
9. As regards jail sentence of the applicant, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, particularly, considering the fact that the applicant was in
jail for a period of 44 days, he is facing the lis since 2009, i.e., for more than 15
years and there are no criminal antecedents against him, I am of the considered
opinion that ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed
upon the applicant by the trial Court as well as by the appellate Court, the jail
sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him while
directing to run sentences concurrently. However, fine sentence imposed upon the
applicant is maintained.
10. Consequently, the revision is allowed in part. The conviction of the applicant
under the aforesaid sections is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already
undergone by him with a direction to run the sentences concurrently. Since the
applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall be in force for a
period of six months as per the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal)
JUDGE
Anjani
