Chattisgarh High Court
Suraj Diwakar And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 March, 2025
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 725 of 2011
1 - Suraj Diwakar, S/o Shri Ratiram Diwakar Aged About 24 Years R/o Sanjay
Nagar, Talapara Bilaspur (C.G.)
2 - Krishna Kumar, S/o Shri Motilal Aged About 30 Years R/o Matbhalla, P.S.- Hirri,
District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
Digitally
signed by 3 - Shiva @ Shivkumar, S/o Shri Maniram Aged About 23 Years R/o Sharda Nagar,
ANJANI
KUMAR Talapara, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicants
ALLENA
Date: versus
2025.03.28
17:18:08 The State Of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station, Civil Lines,
+0530
Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant
For Applicants : Shri Rohan Sharma, Advocate appears on behalf of
Shri Shailendra Dubey, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Smt. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer.
(HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)
Order on Board
27/03/2025
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 18.11.2011 passed in
Criminal Appeal No.273/2011 (preferred by Suraj Diwakar & Krishna Kumar) and
Criminal Appeal No.274/2011 (preferred by Shiva @ Shivakumar) by the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) whereby the appellate Court allowed the
appeals in part while reducing the sentence of the applicants to six months RI in
place of RI for 2 - 2 years imposed under Sections 380 & 454 IPC by the Court of
J.M.F.C. in its judgment dated 09.09.2011 passed in Criminal Case No.35/2011,
while keeping in tact the fine amount of Rs.500/- on each count and direction to run
the sentences concurrently.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant - Burhanuddin
lodged a report at Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur stating therein that he used to
go to the house of his uncle Muzaffar Hussain, Agneya Nagar to switch on the lights
and on 30.07.2010 a neighbour of his uncle has informed him that lock of the inside
doors was found broken and articles were shattered here and there and that all the
three Godrej cupboard kept in bedroom were broken. On the basis of his report,
Civil Lines Police Station lodged the F.I.R. for the offence punishable under Sections
454 IPC under crime No.512/2012 and statements of witnesses were recorded and
during investigation, it was found that the property of old watches, silver coins,
utensils and some currency notes was theft by the present applicants, who were
subsequently apprehended and the stolen property was seized from them on the
basis of their memorandum statements.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur. The applicants/accused persons abjured their guilt and
pleaded innocence.
4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence,
convicted the applicants under Sections 380, 454 IPC and sentenced them as
shown in para 1. In appeals, the appellate Court, while confirming the conviction
part, reduced the sentence imposed upon the applicants as mentioned in opening
paragraph.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicants submits that after depositing
the fine amount and getting remission on completion of jail sentence, the applicant
No.1 - Suraj Diwakar has been released from jail on 09.01.2012 as is evident from
the memo dated 23.04.2012 sent by the Office of Central Jail, Bilaspur, therefore,
he does not want to press this revision in so far as the applicant No.1 and may be
disposed as infructuous.
As regards applicants No. 2 & 3 - Krishna Kumar and Shiva @ Shivkumar,
he further submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the said
applicants, but challenging the finding of sentence part, which, according to him, is
on higher side. He further submits that the applicants were in jail from 05.09.2010
to 24.09.2010 and again from 18.11.2011 to 16.12.2011 and in this way, the
applicants incarcerated jail sentence for a period of 45 days. They have no criminal
antecedents and are facing the lis since 2010, i.e. for more than 14 years and at
that time they were young ones. Besides above, he submits that fine amount has
already been deposited. On these premises, he urged that the applicants-Krishna
Kumar and Shiva @ Shivkumar 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.
8. Considering the statements of P.W.3 Shital Prasad Tiwari, Head Constable,
P.W.4 complainant Burhanuddin, P.W.5 Anish and P.W.8 Muzaffar Hussain and
other evidence and material documents available on record, I am of the view that
both the trial Court as well as appellate Court have rightly convicted the said
applicants and I hereby affirm the same.
9. As regards jail sentence of the applicants No.2 & 3, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, particularly, considering that the applicants were in jail
for a period of 45 days and that they are facing the lis since 2010, i.e., for more than
14 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 No.2 & 3 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 and default sentence is maintained.
10. Consequently, the revision is dismissed as infructuous in so far as the
applicant - Suraj Diwakar is concerned and as regards applicants No. 2 & 3 Krishna
Kumar and Shiva @ Shivkumar, the revision is allowed in part.
11. Accordingly, the conviction of the applicants No.2 & 3 under the aforesaid
sections is affirmed and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by
them. Since the said 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
