Chattisgarh High Court
Phoolchand vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 March, 2025
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 546 of 2016
1 - Phoolchand S/o Surajlal Pardhi Aged About 35 Years R/o Police Station
Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
Digitally
signed by
ANJANI
2 - Govind S/o Ishwari Pardhi Aged About 25 Years R/o Police Station Dhamdha,
KUMAR
ALLENA District Durg Chhattisgarh.
Date:
2025.03.24
13:45:48
... Applicants
+0530
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
... Non-applicant
For Applicants : Shri Vimalesh Bajpai, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Shri R.N.Pusty, Government Advocate.
(HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)
Order on Board
22/03/2025
Heard.
1.
The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal
Procedure against the judgment dated 07.11.2015 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.178/2015 whereby the learned appellate
Court allowed the appeal in part and convicted the applicants under Section 411 of
IPC and sentenced them to RI for two years and fine of Rs.100/- each while setting
aside the judgment dated 03.10.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.2137/2015 convicting the applicants under
Sections 457 & 380/34 IPC and sentencing them to RI for 3 years and fine of
Rs.50/- each and in default thereof, to undergo further RI for seven days with
direction to run the sentences concurrently.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.10.2013 at 4.00 am,
complainant Kutubuddin lodged a report at Police Station Vidhan Sabha, Raipur
stating therein that in village Mandhar near Stationpara, while he was sleeping
along with his family members, at 1:30 at midnight some unknown persons
committed theft of golden and silver ornaments worth Rs.1,30,000/-. After
registration of the crime, the stolen property were recovered from the applicants on
the basis of their memorandum statement during investigation. During identification
proceedings, the complainant identified them as stolen articles.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the
concerned JMFC Court. The applicants abjured the charge and pleaded non- guilty.
4. Learned Trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence,
convicted the applicants under Section 457 & 380/34 IPC and sentenced them to RI
for 3 years and fine of Rs.50/- and in default thereof, to undergo further RI for seven
days with direction to run the sentences concurrently, however, in the appeal
preferred by the applicants, the learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated
07.11.2015 acquitted the applicants under Section 457 & 380 IPC and convicted
and sentenced the applicants with lesser offence as mentioned in paragraph 1 of
this judgment. Hence, this revision.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to
challenge the conviction of the applicants and confines his argument on sentence
part only, which according to him is on higher side. He further submits that out of
maximum jail sentence of 2 years, the applicants were in jail for one year three
months and twenty six days i.e. from 19.01.2015 to 03.10.2015 and again from
07.11.2015 to 21.06.2016, there are no criminal antecedents against them and they
are facing the lis since 2013, i.e. for more than 12 years. Lastly, he submits that fine
amount has been deposited. 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 revision and supported
the impugned judgment.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused
the record.
8. As regards conviction of the applicants, considering the statement of the
complainant Kutubuddin (PW-1) supported by other witnesses, i.e., P.W.2 Jubeda
Begum, P.W.4 Pitamber, Kotwar and P.W.6 Ramswarup, Head Constable and other
evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by
the learned Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is
correct finding and does not call for interference.
9. Regarding sentence of the applicants, further considering the above facts
and circumstances of the case, and also considering the fact that the applicants
have remained in custody for one year three months and twenty six days, there are
no criminal antecedents against them and they are facing the lis since 2013, i.e. for
more than 12 years, 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 already undergone by them.
10. 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, 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
Anjani
