Chattisgarh High Court
Raju @ Rajendra vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 March, 2025
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 957 of 2016
1 - Raju @ Rajendra S/o Bhaktu Ogre Aged About 30 Years
2 - Shayamkaran S/o Pyarelal Khutiyale Aged About 35 Years
Digitally
signed by
ANJANI Both are R/o Village Bhatgaon, Police Station Mungeli, District Mungeli,
KUMAR
ALLENA Chhattisgarh.,
Date:
2025.03.06
17:07:38 ... Applicants
+0530
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mungeli, District Mungeli,
Chhattisgarh.
... Non-Applicant
For Applicants : Shri Deepak Kumar Jain, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Shri Dipak Kumar Singh, P.L.
(HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)
Order on Board
06/03/2025
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 23.08.2016 passed in
Criminal Appeal No.38/2015 by the Court of Additional Judge to the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli (C.G.) whereby the appellate Court dismissed
the appeal, while upholding judgment dated 16.04.2015 in Criminal Case
No.1770/2014 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mungeli, convicting the applicants
under Sections 380/34 & 457 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo RI for 2
years and fine of Rs.50/- under Section 380/34 IPC and to undergo RI for 3 years
with fine of Rs.50/- under Section 457 IPC 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 - Keshav Tiwari
lodged a report at Police Station Jarahagaon stating therein that on 18.07.2014 at
7.00 pm after performing Pooja in Durga Temple, he went to his house at village
Kona and on the next day morning, he saw the lock was broken and on going inside
he also found that the silver umbrella, crown, Mangal Chhatra, golden nostril and
silver and golden locket, total value Rs.8,600/-, had been stolen by unknown
persons. On the basis of his report, Jarahagaon Police Station lodged the F.I.R. for
the offence punishable under Sections 457 & 380 IPC under crime No.119/2014 and
during investigation, the present applicants were apprehended and the stolen
property was seized from them.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Mungeli. The applicants/accused persons abjured their guilt and
pleaded innocence.
4. Learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court, after appreciation of oral
and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicants as shown in
para 1.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not
challenge the conviction of the applicants, but challenging the finding of sentence
part, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that during trial,
the applicants were in jail from 01.09.2014 to 18.10.2016 and in this way, the
applicants incarcerated jail sentence for a period of 2 years and one month. They
have no criminal antecedents and are facing the lis since September, 2014, i.e. for
more than 11 years. Besides above, he submits that fine amount has been
deposited. On these premises, he urged that the applicants may be sentenced to
the period already undergone by them.
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 Keshav Tiwari supported by
the evidence of P.W.2 Indrajit, P.W.3 P. Toppo, Investigating Officer and P.W.4
Rajnish Jaiswal 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
applicants and I hereby affirm the same.
9. As regards jail sentence of the applicants, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, particularly, considering that the applicants were in jail
for a period of 2 years and 1 months and that they are facing the lis since
September, 2014, i.e., for more than 11 years and there are no criminal antecedents
against them, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if,
while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicants by the trial Court as well
as by the appellate Court, the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to the
period already undergone by them while directing to run sentences concurrently.
However, fine sentence imposed upon the applicants is maintained.
10. Consequently, the revision is allowed in part. The conviction of the applicants
under the aforesaid sections is affirmed and they are sentenced to the period
already undergone by them. Since the applicants are reported to be on bail,
therefore, their 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
