Brijesh Rao @ Babu Rao vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 4375 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Brijesh Rao @ Babu Rao vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 September, 2025

                                                               1




                                                                                             NAFR
          Digitally
          signed by

PRAKASH
          PRAKASH
          KUMAR                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
KUMAR     Date:
          2025.09.11
          16:10:05
          +0530

                                                    CRR No. 837 of 2016

                       Brijesh Rao @ Babu Rao S/o M. Nageshwar Rao, aged about 22 years, R/o
                       Housing Board Colony Bodhghat, Jagdalpur, P.S. Bodhghat Jagdalpur,
                       District Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                                       ... Applicant
                                                             versus
                       State of Chhattisgarh Through Aarakshi Kendra Bodhghat, District Bastar,
                       Chhattisgarh.
                                                                                   ... Respondents

For Applicant : Shri Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate For State/Respondent : Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 11/09/2025

1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed

against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

28.10.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No.35/2015 by the Sessions

Judge, Bastar Place Jagdalpur (C.G.), arising out of the judgment

dated 27.08.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.08/2014 convicting the

present applicant Brijesh Rao for the offence under Section 392 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC') and sentencing him to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.500/- and

in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for one month. The learned

Appellate Court maintained the conviction and sentence of the present

applicant. Hence, this revision.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 21.12.2011 at about 10:30

PM, complainant Kanta Prasad (PW-01) and Sunil Acharya (PW-02)

came on their motorcycle and parked the motorcycle in front of Chetak

Bar Bus Stand, at that time, the applicant/accused came there from

behind, pushed the motorcycle and snatched his (complainant) gold

chain and pendent from his neck and fled away from the spot. On the

basis of the above background, FIR (Ex.P-1) was lodged and during

course of investigation, the applicant/accused was arrested. Thereafter,

the statement of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the

Cr.P.C.

3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against

the applicant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur,

Chhattisgarh. The accused/applicant abjured the guilt and prayed for

trial.

4. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on

record, the Court of learned JMFC, Bastar Place Jagdapur vide

judgment dated 27.08.2015, convicted and sentenced the applicant as

mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. The learned Appellate

Court, affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed upon

the present applicant. Hence, this revision.

5. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to

challenge the conviction of the applicant but is challenging the

sentence part, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further

submits that the applicant has remained in jail for one year and three

months, he is facing the lis since 2012 i.e. for more than 13 years. He

further submits that at the time of alleged incident, the applicant was a

young boy aged about 22 years. This apart, the fine amount has

already been deposited before the concerned trial Court. Therefore, the

jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period

already undergone by him.

6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel supports the impugned

judgment and submits that after considering every aspect of the matter,

the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have rightly convicted and

sentenced the applicant, which warrants no interference.

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and

perused the record.

8. Considering the statements of the complainant Kamta Prasad Awasthi

(P.W.1), Sunil Acharya (P.W.2) and D.S. Sahu (P.W.4) supported with

the other evidence 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 correct

finding. Thus, I hereby affirm the conviction of the applicant.

9. As regards the sentence part of the applicant, considering the facts and

circumstances of the case and further considering the facts that

applicant has remained in jail for about one year and three months, he

is facing the lis since 2012 i.e. for more than 13 years, and further, the

fine amount has already been deposited, I am of the view that no

fruitful purpose would be served to send the applicant back to jail

again, therefore, ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the

conviction imposed upon applicant, the jail sentence awarded to him is

reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, fine

sentence and default sentence awarded by both the Courts shall

remain in tact.

10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of applicant

under the aforementioned Section is affirmed and he is sentenced to

the period already undergone by him.

11. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond

shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of

provision of Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Samhita, 2023.

Sd/-

(Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Prakash