Chattisgarh High Court
Nehru Lal @ Ghasiya vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 26 June, 2025
Page 1 of 4
Digitally
signed by
SAURABH
SAURABH YADAV
YADAV Date:
2025.06.30
11:07:47
+0530
2025:CGHC:28240
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 898 of 2016
Daso Ram S/o Maniram Dhobi Aged About 27 Years Occupation Krishi,
R/o Village Bagudega, Thana Lailunga, District: Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
... Applicants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Jashpur District:
Jashpur , Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
Nehru Lal @ Ghasiya S/o Kanhaiya Lal Aged About 26 Years Now 33
Years, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o. Amapali, Police Station Lailunga,
District Raigarh Now Jashpur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
--- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through The District Magistrate, Jashpur, District:
Jashpur Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate
(In CRR No. 898 of 2016)
For Applicant : Ms. Deblina Maity, Advocate on
behalf of Mr. Akhtar Hussain,
Advocate
(In CRR No. 872 of 2016)
For Respondent/State : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Judgment on Board
26.06.2025
1. These revision have been preferred by the applicants against the
judgment dated 31.08.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of
2009 by the Additional Sessions Judge Kunkuri to the Court of
Additional Judge, District: Jashpur (C.G.) whereby, the appeal of the
applicants filed against the judgment dated 27.04.2009 of Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Pathhalgaon, District: Jashpur (C.G.) in
Criminal Case No. 362 of 2005 wherein, the applicants has been
convicted under Section 394/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI
for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine
additional RI for 4 months, is affirmed by the Appellate Court.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.02.2002, at about 02:00
pm, the present applicants along with other persons committed
robbery of Rs. 9,000/- cash, one wrist watch, clothes etc. from the
complainant Chandrashekhar on the point of pistol. On report being
lodged to the above effect, the offence under Section 394 of IPC was
registered against the applicants.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under the aforesaid
section was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pathhalgaon,
District: Jashpur (C.G.). The applicants abjured the charge and
pleaded non-guilty.
4. Learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence, convicted & sentenced them as mentioned in the Para No.
1. The said judgment was challenged by the applicants in criminal
appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated
31.08.2016, dismissed the appeal of applicants upholding the
judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, these revision.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants jointly submits that they
does not want to challenge the conviction part of the applicants and
confines their argument to the sentence part only, which is on higher
side. They further submits that the applicant- Daso Ram has remained
in jail for 1 year 8 months 5 days i.e. from 15.02.2002 to 20.09.2003
and 31.08.2016 to 23.09.2016 and applicant Nehru Lal @ Ghasiya
has remained in jail for 1 year 6 months and 24 days i.e. from
22.04.2002 to 07.10.2003 and 31.08.2016 to 19.09.2016 and they are
facing the lis since 2002, i.e. for more than 23 years and at the
relevant time, they were young men, therefore, the jail sentence
awarded to the applicants may be reduced to the period already
undergone by them.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and
perused the record.
7. Considering the statements of PW-1 Chandrashekhar (Complainant)
supported by PW-2 Sukhdev and PW-6 Oskar and other evidence 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 a correct finding of
fact.
8. Further considering the above facts and circumstances of the case,
and also considering the fact that the applicants have undergone
about 1 year 6 months, they are facing the lis since 2002 i.e. for more
than 23 years, therefore, I am of the view that the ends of justice
would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the
applicants, the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period
of 1 year and 6 months which has already been undergone by them.
9. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the
applicants under the aforementioned section is affirmed and they are
sentenced to the period already undergone by them. The fine
sentence is affirmed.
10. Since the applicants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their 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
Saurabh
