Anil Kumar Singhania, S/o Shankar Lal Singhania, aged about 42 years, R/o Bamnidihi, Police v. State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate, Korba
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:10110 NAFR Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date: 2025.03.07 12:39:05 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 670 of 2005 Anil Kumar Singhania, S/o Shankar Lal Singhania, aged about 42 years, R/o Bamnidihi, Police Station Saragaon, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) ---Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate, Korba (Chhattisgarh) --- Respondent CRA No. 765 of 2005 Sushil alias Janu, S/o Manmohan, aged about 28 years, R/o Bamnidih, P.S.: Saragaon, District: Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) ---Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through the District Magistrate Korba, District: Korba (Chhattisgarh) --- Respondent 2 CRA No. 375 of 2006
Legal Reasoning
Ranjit alias Gopi aged about 24 years, S/o Firthu, R/o Village-Urga, Police Station-City Kotwali Korba, Chouki-Urgaa, District-Korba (Chhattisgarh) ---Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Korba Incharge Police Station City Kotwali, Chouki-Urga, District- Korba (C.G.) --- Respondent CRA No. 675 of 2005 Uttra Kumar, aged about 23 years, S/o Sukhiram R/o village Tikaja, Police Station-City Kotwali Korba, Chouki-Urga, District- Korba (C.G.) --Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh through in-charge Police Station City Kotwali, Korba, Chouki-Urga, District-Korba (C.G.) --- Respondent For Appellants For State : :
Legal Reasoning
Dr. Sanjeet Sharma along with Mr. Vikash Kumar Pandey and Manoj Jaiswal, Advocate. Mr. Ajay Pandey, G. A. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgement on Board 28.02.2025 1. As all these appeals arise out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.07.2005 passed by the 3 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Korba, (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.
Decision
04/2005, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :- In 670 of 2005:- Conviction Sentence U/S 411 of IPC R.I. for 01 year, with fine amount of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for three months. In 675 of 2005:- Conviction Sentence U/S 392 of IPC R.I. for 04 years, with fine amount of Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 06 months. In 765 of 2005:- Conviction Sentence U/S 411 of IPC R.I. for 01 year, with fine amount of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for three months. In 375 of 2005:- Conviction Sentence U/S 392 of IPC R.I. for 04 years, with fine amount of Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 06 months. 2. As per case of the prosecution, at about 6.00 p.m. on 12.07.2004 the 4 first informant Dilip Kumar along with his father Ram Gopal were returning back to their house after finishing their business tour, near the Railway crossing of Village Pachpedi, two persons came by motorcycle and looted the ornaments which were kept by the first informant for the purpose of his business. A report was lodged by Dilip Kumar in Police Chowki Urga vide Ex. P/01. On the basis of the report lodged by the first informant, Dilip Kumar, the police started investigation. During investigation, the bill showing the ownership of the ornaments were seized vide Ex. P/02. Statements of the witnesses were recorded by the Police and as per the memorandum statement of one of the accused persons namely Uttara Kumar the looted ornaments were seized from Uttara Kumar vide Ex. P/06 and from the present appellant Anil Kumar vide Ex. P/07 and vide Ex. P/08 & Ex. P/09 the ornaments alleged to have been looted from the first informant which were confiscated from Sushil Kumar and Ranjit respectively. 3. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba and, thereafter the matter was committed to Additional Sessions Judge, Korba and charges were framed under Sections 394, 398/34 of IPC against the co-accused persons Ranjit @ Gopi and Uttara Kumar and for the present appellant Anil Kumar and one co-accused viz. Sushil charge under Section 411 of IPC was framed. 4. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in 5 which they denied the charges leveled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. No witness has been adduced by the defence in support of the appellant. 5. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.07.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Korba the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned in inaugural para of this judgment. Hence, the present appeals. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and facts available on record. The learned trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence and wrongly convicted the appellant and other co-accused persons. The present appellant Anil and co-accused Sushil Kumar are innocent businessman and another co-accused persons are innocent citizen. The prosecution has wrongly implicated all the accused persons in grievous offence and before the learned trial Court, it is clear that complainant did not identify the accused persons and no reliable evidence has been produced by the prosecution, but the learned trial Court only on suspicion convicted all the accused persons. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, he submits that if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the appellant and other co-accused persons under Sections 392 and 411 of IPC as imposed by the trial Court is just 6 and proper, considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 2004, this appeal is pending since 2005, The appellant is now aged more than 63 years; he along with one co-accused Sushil @ Janu have remained in jail for more than 08 days and the other co-accused persons are now middle aged persons and they have remained in jail for more than 06 months, while on bail they never misused the liberty granted to them. So, in the interest of justice the appellant and the other co-accused persons may be sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel strongly opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and other co-accused persons and by supporting the impugned judgment submits that learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the appellant and other co-accused persons. Hence, these appeals are being devoid of any merit and are liable to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 9. From bare perusal of the record of the learned trial Court, it is clear that the learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 394, 398 read with Section 34 of IPC against the co-accused persons Ranjit and Uttara Kumar and framed charges under Section 411 of IPC against the present accused/appellant Anil and the co-accused person Sushil @ Janu and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court acquitted the appellant and other persons under Sections 394 and 398 of IPC, but convicted the co-accused Uttara 7 Kumar and Ranjith under Section 392 read with Section 34 of IPC and convicted the present appellant Anil and other co-accused person Sushil under Section 411 of IPC. The prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses to prove its case against the present appellant and the co-accused persons. 10. Complainant Dilip Kumar Soni (PW-01) and Ram Gopal Soni (PW-02) have stated that on 12.07.2004 when they were returning from Sohagpur market, two persons stopped their motorcycle, looted them and also assaulted them. 11. Dr. Rudrapal Singh (PW-03) examined the complainant Dilip Kumar Soni (PW-01) and Ram Gopal Soni (PW-02) and found injuries on their body and he gave his report vide Ex. P/03 and Ex. P/04. Investigating Officer Chandrama Singh Rajput (PW-10) stated that on memorandum of the co-accused Uttara Kumar he sees property from Sushil and Anil Kumar. However, Bharat Lal Sharma (PW-06)S stated that the complainant identified his ornaments before him as per Ex. P/14. 12. The learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence of all the witnesses and rightly acquitted the appellant and other co-accused persons under Section 394 and 398 of IPC and rightly convicted the present appellant Anil Kumar and the co-accused Sushil under Section 411 of IPC and convicted the other co-accused persons Uttara Kumar and Ranjit under Section 392/34 of IPC. So, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 13. As regards sentence, it is clear that the incident took place in the 8 year 2004 and this appeal is pending since 2005. The present appellant is now aged more than 63 years; and the other co- accused persons are now middle aged persons. The accused persons/appellants Ranjit and Uttara Kumar have remained in jail for more than 06 months, whereas the appellant Anil Kumar and the co-accused person Sushil @ Janu have remained in jail for more than 08 days and all the other appellants have been granted bail by this Court and they did not misuse their liberty while on bail, therefore, their sentence under the aforesaid sections is liable to be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 14. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the sentence imposed by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the fine amount imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. 15. Ex consequenti, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining conviction of the appellant and other co-accused persons under Sections 392 and Section 411 of IPC, the sentence imposed thereunder by the trial Court is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by them. 16. The appellant and the other co-accused persons are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bond shall remain in operation for a 9 period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of CrPC. 17. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. U.K. Raju Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE