• Mohammed Imran, S/o Mohammed Iqbal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o behind the Mosque v. • State Of Chhattisgarh, Through: Station House Officer, Tikrapara, District-Raipur
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.01.23 12:18:56 +0530 2025:CGHC:2586 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1036 of 2004 • Mohammed Imran, S/o Mohammed Iqbal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o behind the Mosque, Santoshi Nagar, P.S. Tikrapara, District- Raipur (C.G.). --- Appellant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh, Through: Station House Officer, Tikrapara, District-Raipur (C.G.). CRA No. 70 of 2005 --- Respondent • Khilawan Chandrakar, S/o Sonuram Chandrakar, Aged about 38 years, R/o Pragati Vihar Colony, P.S. Tikrapara, District-Raipur (C.G.). ---Appellant Versus • State Of Chhattisgarh, Through District-Magistrate Raipur (C.G.). --- Respondent For Appellant For Respondent/State : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate in CRA No.1036/2004. Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate in CRA No.70/2005 Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board (15.01.2025) 2 1. The present appeals arise out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2004 passed by the learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Raipur (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 285/2004 whereby, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted and and sentenced both the appellants as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 386/34 of IPC R.I. for 05 years with fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of fine, additional R.I. for 04 months. U/s 394 of IPC R.I. for 05 years with fine of Rs.2000/- and in U/s 325/34 of IPC R.I. for 05 years with fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of fine, additional R.I. for 04 months. default of fine, additional R.I. for 04 months. U/s 342/34 of IPC R.I. for 6 months 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Khomchandra Sahu who is residing in Tikrapara Raipur and is a teacher in Navjeevan Vidhya Mandir Private School. On the date of incident i.e., 25.05.2004 at about 11:30 AM while he was coming back to his house from the school, on his way to home near a shop named Rajasthan Photo Framing, the complainant was intercepted by A-1(Mujaffar) and A-3 (Khilawan Chandrakar). Thereafter, accused A-1 and A-3 took the complainant to the house of A-1 on the pretext that they want to discuss some issues regarding admission of students to the school. After reaching to the house of A-1, the accused Imran (A-2) was also present there. Thereafter the accused started to threaten the complainant saying that you along with Ramesh Kumar and Riyad Yadav had stolen the gold worth Rs.25,80,000/- from the almirah of Ishu Sir. While doing such act the complainant was roped in and both the hands and legs, were tied up and the gold, silver ring and the sonata wrist watch were taken out by 3 the accused. While doing so the complainant was roped and tied up and was assaulted. Subsequently, the accused persons forced the complainant to write a letter that I along with Ramesh Kumar and Riyad Yadav have harassed Isshu due to which he died in the hospital and thereafter have stolen his gold from his Almirah and shared the gold amongst them. After obtaining a letter from the complainant, the accused (A-1) kept the same in his pocket. Thereafter accused persons with demand of Rs.50,000/- released the complainant. The complainant after coming back to his house informed the incident to his wife and his house owner and on the next day i.e., 26.05.2004 complaint was lodged in the Police Station, Tikrapara, Raipur (C.G.) and after due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellants. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents. However, the appellants have examined only 02 witnesses in their defense. The statement of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2004, learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeals. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that they are not pressing the appeals so far as the conviction of the appellants are concerned and confine their argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to them, the 4 appellants (Mohammed Imran & Khilawan Chandrakar) have already undergone about 10 months 04 days and 10 months 01 day, the matters are pending since 2004-2005, the appellants are aged about (Mohammed Imran)-50 years and (Khilawan Chandrakar)-57 at present and no purpose would be served to send back the appellants to jail. Therefore they may be sentenced with the period already undergone by them. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment. 8. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of Yogiraj Sahu (PW-1), Shyam Kumar Sharma (PW-5), Victim (PW-6), Dhaneshwari Sahu (PW-8), Dr. Nidhi Gupta (PW-11), Dr. Anand Jaiswal (PW-12), establish the involvement of the accused/appellants in the crime in question. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellants for the aforesaid offences. 9. As regards sentence, keeping in view the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 2004 i.e. about 20 years ago and also considering the fact that the accused/appellants namely Mohammed Imran is aged about 50 years, Khilawan Chandrakar is aged about 57 years , they have already remained in jail for more than 10 months, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be served if the jail sentence imposed under the aforesaid Section is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants in CRA No. 1036/2004 and in 5 CRA No. 70/2005 while keeping the finding and sentence with default stipulation awarded by the trial Court intact, therefore, their sentence is liable to be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 10. In view of the above consideration, the appeals CRA No. 1036/2004 and in CRA No. 70/2005 are partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the appellants under Sections 386/34, 394 & 325/34 of IPC, they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. However, the fine amount of Rs. 2,000/- imposed under Sections 386/34, 394 & 325/34 of IPC, is enhanced to Rs.5,000/- on each count. However, the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 342/34 of IPC is maintained. The enhanced fine amount shall be payable within a period of 60 days from today, in default of payment of the fine amount imposed/enhanced by this Court, the appellants shall be liable to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 06 months. If any amount has already been paid towards the fine the same shall be adjusted. 11. Accordingly, the appeals are partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 12. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall continue for a further period of 6 months as per the requirement of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 13. Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. Sourabh P. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE