Chattisgarh High Court
Onkar Sonwani @ Rinku vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 May, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:20215
NAFR
Digitally signed
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
by PRAKASH
PRAKASH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.05.02
17:07:32 +0530
Criminal Revision No. 982 of 2016
1. Onkar Sonwani @ Rinku S/o Lachhindhar Sonwani, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Village Goranga, Post Office And Police Station - Bakaband,
District - Jagdalpur (Bastar) Chhattisgarh,
Present R/o Village Golamal, Post Office And Police Station - Devbhog,
District - Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh,
2. Adhiram @ Bittu Pradhan, S/o Adalram Pradha, Aged About 36 Years,
R/o Village Chichiya, Post Office And Police Station Devbhog, District
Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh,
3. Umesh Pradhan, S/o Laxminarayan Pradhan, Aged About 23 Years,
R/o Village - Chichiya, Post Office And Police Station Devbhog, District
Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh,
4. Goutam Pradhan, S/o Kesar Pradhan, Aged About 20 Years, R/o
Village Chichiya, Post Office And Police Station Devbhog, District
Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh,
... Applicants
versus
• State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Gariyaband,
District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh,
... Respondent
For Applicants : Ms. Rekha Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf
of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate
For State/Respondent : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Order on Board
02/05/2025
1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal
Procedure against the judgment dated 30.09.2016 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Gariaband, (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal
No.48/2015 arising out of judgment dated 27.10.2015 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Devbhog, District - Gariaband in
Criminal Case No.150/2014 wherein the applicants/accused persons
have been convicted under Section 387/34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (in short 'the IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 03 years each and fine of Rs.1,000/- each, and in
default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for
01 month. The learned Appellate Court affirmed the said judgment,
hence, this revision.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, namely,
Bholeshwar Khare (PW-01) lodged a report in the police station -
Devbhog, District - Gariaband, to the effect that the accused
persons/applicants came to the office and threatened the complainant
to life and demanded Rs.45,000/- from him saying that they are
naxalites and due to fear the complainant and other persons gave
Rs.10,000/- to them (accused persons). Thereafter, the accused
persons again came to the house of the complainant and demanded
rest of the money and at that time brother of the complainant came
there and caught hold the accused persons. On the basis of the said
report, FIR was lodged. During investigation, the accused
persons/applicants were arrested. Statement of the witnesses were
recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Devbhog, District Gariaband, (C.G.).
The applicants abjured the charges and pleaded non-guilty.
4. The Court of learned JMFC as well as the Appellate Court, after
appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and
sentenced the applicants/accused persons as mentioned in paragraph
one of this judgment. Hence, this revision.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that she does not want to
press this revision on conviction of the applicants, but confines her
argument to the sentence part only, which according to her, is on higher
side. She further submits that accused persons are poor villagers and
three of them are young persons. She further submits that the applicant
No.1 - Onkar Sonwani @ Rinku, applicant No.2 - Adhiram @ Bittu
Pradhan, applicant No.3- Umesh Pradhan and applicant No.4 -
Goutam Pradhan have remained in jail during trial for 110, 88, 88, 104
days respectively, however, they have also remained in jail for further
24 days after the judgment of the appellate Court i.e. total 134, 112,
112 and 128 days respectively. She further submits that they have no
criminal antecedents and they are facing lis since June, 2014. She also
submits 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 revision 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 Bholeshwar Khare
(PW-01), Sanjay Khare (PW-03), 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/accused
persons.
9. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, and also considering the facts that applicants have
remained in jail, they are facing the lis since June, 2014 i.e. about 11
years, there are no criminal antecedents against them 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 of
112 days which has already been undergone by them.
10. Consequently, the revision is 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
