Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:8391 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1113 of 2015 Raja Pathan @ Sheikh Moinnuddin S/o Nizamuddin Aged About 31 Years R/o Subhash Chowk, Dalli Rajhara , Police Station Dalli Rajhara, Tahsil And District Balod Chhattisgarh ...Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Dalli Rajhara, Tahsil And District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate on behalf For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer of Mr. Jaydeep Singh Yadav, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.02.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the judgment and order dated 16.10.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 000007/2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balod (C.G.) afÏrming the judgment dated 23.12.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dallirajhara, Balod (C.G.), whereby the learned JMFC has convicted the applicant for offence under ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.02.20 12:39:42 +0530 2 Section 379/34 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 01 year with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief, is that, on the date of incident 02.05.2013 at about 12.30 AM, the applicant and 5 other co- accused persons namely Nemuk, Ramesh Kumar, Dhanraj, Raja Pathan @ Sheikh Moinuddin and Pankaj Kumar stolen iron ore from Jharandalli Mines, near old CISF Barrack of Bhilai Steel Plant under the jurisdiction of Police Station Dhallirajhara. At about 12.20 am at night under the Waist Dam and in front of CISF old barrack about 8-10 persons after hearing voice of constables and vehicle, the said persons run away from there. When the constable went there, they found that vehicle No.CG-04-G-1264 bolder iron is being loaded. After sometime, the co-accused appeared to be coming towards the vehicle and disclosed his name as Harnit Singh and owner of said vehicle. He gave the said truck to one Raja (present applicant) for 3-4 hours on hire @ Rs.4000/- for local trip of bolder from Jharandalli. After ending the time when truck not returned he came to search. Then Constable A.K.Dixit and Rajkumar gave intimation at Post thereafter (P.W.-6) Constable Nitin Choudhary reached there. (P.W.-5) Head Constable B. Kameshwar Rao also reached who brought the applicant alogwith truck at Post. Head Constable (P.W.-5) prepared seizure of iron ore loaded truck exhibit (P-10) and made written report exhibit (P- 11). Thereafter (P.W.-3) Assistant Sub Inspector D.K.Yadav registered F.I.R No.110/13 exhibit (P-2) under Section 379/34 of Indian Penal Code, taken 3 statements of witnesses and prepared spot map etc and after arresting some accused persons, charge-sheet has filed before the competent Court. 3. Thereafter, while framing the charges by the learned trial Court, the present applicant denied the charges and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. The question framed by the learned JMFC, Dalli Rajhara, Balod was whether the accused persons on 02/05/2013 around 12.30 AM in the jurisdiction of P.S. Rajhara, Balod in Jharan Dalli, near the Old CISF Barrack, under the permission of the Authorised OfÏcer of the BSP concerning the Iron Ores, committed theft of the same?.During the course of trial, the prosecution then produced six witnesses in their support and also produced documentary evidences concerning the police statement of PW-1, A.K. Dikshit, a copy of the FIR along with other documents. The defence side did not produced any witness or any document from their side. 4. After appreciating the evidence and material available on record, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 23.12.2014, convicted the present applicant and Raja Pathan for the offence under Section 379/34 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 year with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo R.I. for 15 days and acquitted the other co-accused persons namely Nemuk Yadav, Dhanraj Patel and Ramesh Kumar Halba giving benefit of doubt. Being aggrieved by the judgment of trial Court, the applicant was preferred an appeal before the learned appellate Court through an 4 appeal No.000007/2015. Vide impugned judgment dated 16.10.2015, learned appellate Court, afÏrmed the judgment of trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this criminal revision. 5. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant does not challenge his conviction, learned counsel only emphasized that the sentence may be modified suitably by enhancing the fine amount as the applicant has already undergone about two months and two days of jail sentence for the offence under Section 379/34 of IPC. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by him may be sufÏce to meet the ends of justice by enhancing the fine amount. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaydev Shrichand Danani v. State of Gujarat reported in 1993 Supp (1) SCC 616. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the Non-applicant/ State, would strongly support the impugned judgment and submit that there is no need to interfere with the sentence. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments of the trial Court and appellate Court as well as records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the learned trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted the revisionist as mentioned in the opening paragraph. In an appeal preferred by the applicant, the appellate Court has maintained the conviction and sentence of the applicant. Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, 6. 7. 8. 5 I am of the view that the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court have not committed any illegality or infirmity in convicting and sentencing the applicant and affirming the conviction and sentence of the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 379/34 of IPC. 9. Now considering the question of sentence, as the applicant has faced the criminal trial since 01.07.2013 till 23.12.2014 and though the appeal also continued for about 09 months and this revision petition has been pending since 2015 and as such from the date of commencement of trial, more than 10 years have been elapsed, considering the age of the applicant at present and further considering that the applicant has already undergone about two months and two days of jail sentence, there would be no useful purpose to again send the applicant in jail as he has already suffered agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. So this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the jail sentence from R.I. for 01 year under Section 379/34 of the IPC, to the period already undergone by the applicant i.e. two months and two days of jail sentence, however fine amount is enhanced from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 4000/- for offence under Section 379/34 of IPC, in addition to the fine amount already awarded by the trial Court. The total enhanced fine amount shall be deposited by the applicant, within a period of one month from today before the trial Court concerned and the same shall be paid to the Government Special School for Hearing Impaired Girls, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, (C.G.), failing which he shall undergo the sentence as has been 6 awarded by the learned trial Court as well as appellate Court. Ordered accordingly. 10. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 11. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek