Chattisgarh High Court
Ashish Kumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 March, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
PRAKASH NAFR
PRAKASH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.03.04
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
17:01:37
+0530
CRR No. 400 of 2016
• Ashish Kumar Sahu, S/o Omprakash Sahu, Aged About 20 Years, R/o
Ramnagar, Supela, Bhilai -03, Tehsil and District - Durg, Chhattisgarh,
--- Applicant
versus
• State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Purani Bhilai, Distt. Durg,
Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent
CRR No. 445 of 2016
• Nikunj Ramesh Sadhwani S/o Ramesh Sadhwani, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Chabdi Chowk Kamthi, Nagpur, Maharashtra,
---Applicant
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh Through - P.S.- Purani Bhilai, District - Durg
Chhattisgarh,
--- Respondent
For Applicants : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani and
Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi (Legal-Aid),
Advocates
For State : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal,
Judgment on Board
03/03/2025
1. This present revisions filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed
against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
06.04.2016 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, C.G. in
Criminal Appeal No.34/2016, whereby the present applicants have
been convicted under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code (in short 'the IPC') and sentenced them rigorous
imprisonment for two years each and fine of Rs.500/- each, in default
of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for two
months.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Somin
Chandrakar (PW-1) on the date of incident i.e. 11.03.2014 at about
18:40 pm stepped out of her and at that time one white coloured
vehicle Activa, in which the driver along with two other pillion riders
came and snatched a gold chain weighing approximately 18 grams
valued at Rs.45,000/- from her neck and thereafter, fled away from the
spot. Thereafter, the complainant Somin Chandrakar (PW-01) reported
the matter to the Police Station, pursuant to which, FIR (Ex-P1) was
registered. During investigation, the applicants and co-accused
persons were arrested.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhilai - 3, (C.G.). The applicants
abjured the charges and pleaded non-guilty.
4. The Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence, convicted the applicants for the offence under Section 392
read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them rigorous
imprisonment for two years each and fine of Rs.500/- each, in default
of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for two
months. The said judgment of JMFC was challenged by the present
applicants in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide
judgment dated 06.04.2016, convicted and sentenced the applicants
as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this revision.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that they does not want to
press these revisions on conviction part of the applicants, but confines
their argument to the sentence part only, which according to them, is
on higher side. They further submit that applicants have remained in
jail for one year, three months and twelve days i.e. from 06.04.2016 to
04.05.2016 and from 08.10.2014 to 20.01.2016, they have no criminal
antecedents and they are facing lis since October, 2014, i.e. more than
11 years and further, at the time of incident, they were young persons.
They also submit that the fine amount has already been deposited with
the concerned trial Court. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the
applicants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.
6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revisions and
supported the impugned judgment.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and
perused the record.
8. Considering the statements of complainant Somin Chandrakar (PW-1),
Pratap Singh (PW-4), Sriram Sinha (PW-6), Mirza Irfan Beg (PW-9)
and Rajesh Tiwari, Head Constable (PW-11) 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 applicants.
9. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, and also considering the fact that applicants have
undergone jail sentence for a period of one year three months and
twelve days, they are facing the lis since October, 2014 i.e. for more
than eleven years, there are no criminal antecedents against them and
further, at the time of incident, they were very young and fine amount
has already been deposited, I am of the view that ends of justice would
be met if the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period
already undergone by them.
10. Consequently, the revisions are partly allowed. The conviction of the
applicants under the aforementioned Sections is affirmed and they are
sentenced to the period already undergone by them. However, the fine
sentence is affirmed.
11. Since the applicants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their 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
Prakash
