Jashpur, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Through
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:45157-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved for orders on : 19.08.2025 Order passed on : 04.09.2025 CRA No. 330 of 2015 1 - Prahlad Sahu And Anr. S/o Pushtam Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Raigariha Chowk, Kotba, Police Station Bagbahara, Civil And Revenue District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Yadumani Sahu @ Jadu S/o Bansidhar Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Tilgodapara Kotba, Chowki Kotba, Police Station Bagbahara, Civil And Revenue District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Ms. Indira Tripathi, Advocate For State : Mr. Afroj Khan, Panel Lawyer (Division Bench) Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Per; Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge C.A.V. Order 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12.02.2015, passed in Session Trial No. 07 of 2011, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, District – Raigarh convicted appellants for offence under Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 07 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 undergo 05 month rigorous imprisonment and under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 05 month rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences will run concurrently. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that, the present case arises from a serious and alarming incident of armed robbery that took place in the morning of 22.01.2010, in Kharsiya, District: Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. The complainant, Deepak Agrawal, is a resident of Mohapali Road, Kharsiya, and he resides there with his family. According to the prosecution, on the said date, at around 5:00 AM, Vijay Agrawal, the father of the complainant, as part of his regular routine, left home for his usual morning walk. At that time, Deepak Agrawal and his mother (wife of Vijay Agrawal) were sleeping inside the bedroom. At approximately 6:00 AM, while both were still asleep, three unidentified individuals unlawfully entered their house and made their way into the bedroom. Upon seeing the intruders, mother of Deepak Agrawal immediately raised her voice and questioned them, asking “Who are you?”. This sudden noise woke up the complainant. To his utter shock, Deepak Agrawal saw three men standing inside his room, one of whom was armed with a country-made pistol. Before he could respond, one of the accused pointed the pistol at his chest, threatening him and thereby preventing any resistance or reaction. The situation became tense and dangerous as the complainant and his
Legal Reasoning
mother were rendered helpless under the threat of a firearm. Following the threats, the accused individuals looted the household, stealing various gold and silver ornaments, along with a significant amount of 3 cash. The total value of the items stolen was approximately Rs. 4,00,000/- (Four Lakh Rupees). After executing the robbery, the accused fled the scene. However, during their escape, the accused left behind several important items of evidence. These included a red- colored bag, a helmet, and most significantly, a motorcycle bearing the registration number CG 13 H 3465. These items were found at or near the place of the incident and were later seized by the police as part of the investigation. Immediately after the incident, the matter was reported to the Police Station at Kharsiya, where a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged. The local police took cognizance of the offence and commenced investigation under the applicable provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. 3. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Kharsiya. As the case involved serious offences triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Sessions Judge, Raigarh in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Sessions Court then transferred the case to the competent Trial Court for adjudication. Subsequently, charges were framed against the accused appellants under the relevant sections of law. 4. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses, including the complainant, his mother, investigating officers, and other key witnesses. Material exhibits including the firearm, seized items, and recovery memos were produced and marked during the proceedings. After a detailed and careful evaluation of the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defence, the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the guilt of the accused persons had 4 been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appellants were convicted under the offences for which they were charged. Aggrieved by the findings and judgment of the Trial Court, the appellants have now preferred the present criminal appeal, challenging their conviction and sentence on various legal and factual grounds, including alleged errors in appreciation of evidence, procedural irregularities, and non-establishment of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants are innocent persons, and they have been falsely implicated in the present case owing to a flawed and defective investigation, coupled with an improper appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Court. It is submitted that the entire prosecution case is riddled with material inconsistencies, procedural irregularities, and lacks credible, legal, and admissible evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction. The appellants have been made scapegoats in a prosecution that has failed to meet the basic standards of fairness, legality, and evidentiary integrity. It is further submitted that the allegations levelled against the appellants are contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, particularly the golden principle that "the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt". In the present case, the prosecution has failed to discharge that fundamental burden. Rather than relying on cogent and unimpeachable evidence, the conviction has been based on speculative reasoning, doubtful identification, and witnesses whose testimonies are neither consistent nor corroborated by any reliable material on record. One of the most glaring deficiencies in the impugned judgment is the complete failure of learned Trial Court to consider and appreciate the omissions and contradictions that have 5 emerged from the statements of prosecution witnesses during cross- examination. These contradictions are not minor or trivial in nature but go to the root of the prosecution case. For instance, inconsistencies regarding the exact time of the alleged incident, the precise sequence of events, and the description of the accused persons seriously undermine the credibility of the prosecution's narrative. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again held that such material contradictions must be viewed with utmost seriousness, particularly in criminal trials involving serious charges such as armed robbery. Furthermore, the identification process adopted by the prosecution is tainted and legally unsustainable. There exists a substantial and reasonable doubt about the identification of the accused appellants, which the prosecution has failed to dispel. No proper Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted in accordance with established legal
Legal Reasoning
norms. The identification made in open Court, after significant delay and without prior procedural safeguards, carries no evidentiary value. In fact, such identification made in Court for the first time, without being preceded by a legally conducted TIP, is inadmissible and unreliable. The learned Trial Court erred in placing reliance upon such defective identification. 6. In addition to the above, it is submitted that there is no admissible, direct, or even reliable indirect evidence linking the appellants to the commission of the alleged crime. The items recovered from the spot, a red bag, helmet, and motorcycle, have not been proven to be in the exclusive possession of the appellants. There is no independent witness to establish that these items were owned or used by the appellants, nor has any forensic or documentary evidence been 6 brought on record to support such a link. Mere recovery of items from the scene, without establishing possession or connection to the accused beyond reasonable doubt, is insufficient to fasten criminal liability. The learned trial Court, despite the absence of cogent, legal evidence, proceeded to convict the appellants based solely on conjecture and surmise. It failed to appreciate that the case rests on circumstantial evidence, and the law mandates that in such cases, the chain of circumstances must be complete, consistent, and unbroken. In the present case, not only is the chain broken, but several vital links are missing entirely. In view of the submissions made hereinabove, it is prayed that this Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present appeal and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court and to acquit the appellants of all charges framed against them in the interest of justice, equity, and fair play. 7. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and would submit that the appeal, as preferred by the appellants, is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed in limine. The appellants have challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.02.2015, passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh), in Sessions Trial No. 07/2011, whereby the accused/appellants have been rightly convicted for offences punishable under Sections 394 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The impugned judgment is well-reasoned, legally sustainable, and based on credible evidence duly appreciated by the trial Court in accordance with settled principles of law. At the outset, it is submitted that the 7 present appeal is misconceived and do not deserve indulgence of this Court. The conviction is not based on conjecture or surmise but is firmly rooted in direct, consistent, and corroborated evidence of key prosecution witnesses, the seizure of incriminating articles, and scientific and procedural compliance during investigation and trial. It is pertinent to recall the sequence of events as duly established by the prosecution. On the morning of 22.01.2010, at around 5:00 a.m., the father of complainant, Vijay Agrawal, opened the main door of the house and went for his regular morning walk. At that time, Deepak Agrawal (the complainant) and his mother were sleeping inside the house. At approximately 6:00 a.m., three unknown persons unlawfully entered the house. Upon noticing them, the mother of complainant cried for help, and the complainant awoke. One of the accused persons then placed a country-made pistol (deshi katta) on the chest of the complainant, threatening him and creating a situation of fear and danger. Subsequently, the accused/appellants forcibly looted various valuables, including gold and silver ornaments, Rs. 9,400/- in cash, four mobile phones, a purse, and a pair of optical glasses, with the total value estimated at approximately Rs. 4,00,000/-. The accused persons then fled the scene. The First Information Report was promptly lodged by Deepak Agrawal at Police Station Kharsiya, and an offence bearing Crime No. 435/2010 was registered under Sections 394 and 450 of IPC. The police carried out a thorough investigation and recorded the statements of witnesses, prepared site maps (Nazari Naksha Ex. P-4), conducted test identification proceedings (TIP Memo Ex. P-2), and recovered various incriminating articles through seizure memos (Ex. P- 8). The appellants were arrested, and their memorandum statements 8 led to the recovery of relevant articles. It is specifically submitted that accused Prahlad Sahu remained in custody from 24.11.2010 to 23.04.2011, and accused Yaduman Sahu @ Jadu from 24.11.2010 to 11.11.2011, further substantiating the timeline of investigation. After completion of investigation and due procedural formalities, a comprehensive charge sheet was filed before the competent Court, and charges were duly framed under Sections 394 and 450 of IPC. During trial, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses, including critical eyewitnesses and official witnesses. 8. It is submitted that the conviction of the appellants is based upon clear and reliable testimony of eyewitnesses and victims. In particular, the statements of Vijay Agrawal (PW-11), Smt. Taramani Agrawal (PW-10), Deepak Agrawal (PW-16), Satpal Singh (PW-9), and Narmada Prasad Rathore (PW-3) provide a coherent, consistent, and truthful account of the incident and the role of the accused persons. These witnesses have clearly identified the accused and described the manner in which the robbery was committed. Their testimony was tested on cross- examination and remained unshaken, further bolstering the prosecution case. The Investigating Officer, Inspector R.K. Kesharwani (PW-19), also corroborated the seizure of stolen articles and confirmed procedural compliance, which further solidifies the credibility of the investigation. The recovery of stolen items and identification of accused through due legal process leaves no room for reasonable doubt. The defence has merely raised generic arguments based on alleged contradictions and procedural defects, without being able to show how such inconsistencies are material or how they render the prosecution case unreliable. It is well-settled that minor discrepancies or omissions 9 do not vitiate a criminal trial when the core of the prosecution evidence remains intact and credible. The argument raised by the learned counsel for appellants regarding defective identification procedures is also without merit. The TIP was duly conducted, and the same was duly proved during trial. Moreover, the identification of the accused persons by the victims in Court, after having seen them during the commission of the offence, is natural and admissible. The learned Trial Court has rightly considered the chain of events, supported by eyewitness testimony, recoveries, and corroborating material, to arrive at the conclusion of guilt. It is, therefore, submitted that the conviction does not suffer from any legal infirmity or procedural irregularity. On the contrary, the judgment of the learned trial Court is based on a thorough appreciation of evidence, and interference by this Court is neither warranted nor justified. In light of the above, it is submitted that the appeal filed by the appellants is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed as the conviction of the appellants is fully justified, both in fact and in law and to uphold the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12.02.2015 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, in Sessions Trial No. 07/2011. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the appeal with utmost circumspection. 10. Based on the evidence presented, it appears that on the date of the incident, it was alleged that the appellants entered the house of complainant, looted certain articles, and subsequently fled the scene. Umesh Chouhan (P.W.-01) is the person from whose possession the registration book of a motorcycle bearing No. C.G.-13-H-3465 was 10 recovered. He categorically stated that he is not the owner of the vehicle. Punitram (P.W.-02) is a witness to the identification memo (Exhibit P/2). In his examination-in-chief, he stated that he signed the identification memo on the instruction of a concerned peon. He was declared hostile and did not support the test identification parade. He clearly stated that no such identification parade was conducted in his presence. Narmada Prasad Rathore (P.W.-03) is the watchman of Vimal Garg, a neighbour of the complainant Deepak Agrawal. He stated that upon hearing a commotion around 06:00 to 06:15 a.m., he came out of house of Vimal Garg. Bystanders informed him that thieves had fled, but he did not personally see anyone. He denied the contents of his statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC and categorically stated that he had not seen anyone fleeing from the scene. Chitrasen Behra (P.W.-04) is a witness to the seizure memo (Exhibit P/1). He admitted to having signed the seizure memo but denied that any seizure was conducted in his presence. He did not support the seizure made by the police. Dhobaram (P.W.-05), another seizure witness to Exhibit P/1, also did not support the claim of police and was declared hostile. Abhijeet Banerjee (P.W.-06) did not support the case of prosecution and was also declared hostile. He stated that he heard some noise but did not know the cause. Dileshwar Patel (P.W.-07) is a witness to the identification memo (Exhibit P/2). He stated that he signed the memo upon being instructed to do so but is not a witness to the test identification parade. He was declared hostile. His evidence clearly indicates that he neither witnessed nor signed any test identification parade. Shiv Kumar Patel (P.W.-08) is the Revenue Inspector who prepared the spot map based on the information 11 provided by the complainant, Deepak Agrawal. His testimony does not provide any direct evidence regarding the crime itself. Satpal Singh (P.W.-09) stated that while on his morning walk on the date and time of the incident, he heard a noise and saw two to three individuals running down the staircase of house of Vijay Agrawal toward the railway station. Though this witness supports the fact that some individuals fled the scene, he could not confirm their identity as the accused. Taramani Agrawal (P.W.-10), the wife of Vijay Agrawal, was present in the house at the time of the incident. She categorically identified the accused and stated that they threatened her and her family with a country-made pistol (desi katta), demanding access to the safe. One of the accused threatened her son, Deepak Agrawal, who handed over the keys, after which the accused looted gold and other jewellery. She gave a detailed account of the incident and clearly identified the accused both in Court and during the identification proceedings (Exhibit P/2). She also identified the stolen jewellery (Exhibit P/10) and stated that, along with the jewellery, Rs. 9,400 was also taken. However, during cross- examination, there were significant omissions and contradictions in her testimony regarding the test identification parade. Therefore, her evidence is not considered of sterling quality. Her identification of the stolen articles is also not found to be entirely reliable. Vijay Kumar Agrawal (P.W.-11), the owner of a jewellery shop, is the husband of Taramani Agrawal and father of Deepak Agrawal, the complainant. He stated that he returned from his morning walk and heard a commotion. Although he was not an eyewitness, he was informed of the incident by P.W.-10 and P.W.-16. As such, his evidence cannot be disregarded entirely. H.S. Dhruve (P.W.-12), Nayab Tehsildar, conducted the test 12 identification parade. Although there are some minor discrepancies in his testimony, the test identification was duly proved through his evidence. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh (P.W.-14), the Medical Officer, examined Taramani Agrawal and found a contusion on her upper lip, categorized as a simple injury. Natwar Agrawal (P.W.-15) is a witness to the spot map (Exhibit P/17), the memorandum statements (Exhibits P/18, P/19, and P/20), and several seizure memos (Exhibits P/21, P/22, P/23, P/24, P/25A, P/25B, P/25C). While he admitted his signature on these documents, he denied witnessing any seizures or statements being recorded in his presence. He was declared hostile, and therefore, his evidence does not substantiate the memorandum or seizures. Deepak Agrawal (P.W.-16), the main witness, was present at the scene at the time of the incident. He handed over the keys to the accused. Although he is also a witness to the test identification parade, his testimony does not clearly establish that the parade was properly conducted. 11. Now reverting to the facts of the present case, upon a careful appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it emerges that a robbery did indeed take place at the residence of the complainant. Ornaments, cash, and other valuable articles were unlawfully taken from the premises. At the initial stage, since the identity of the accused persons was unknown, the FIR was lodged against unknown persons. Subsequently, based on the memorandum statements and the testimonies of certain witnesses, various articles were stated to have been recovered from the possession of the appellants. A Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted by the Police, and on the strength of the identification made therein, the appellants were 13 implicated and ultimately found guilty by the Trial Court. However, as per the medical evidence of Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh (P.W.-14), although Smt. Taramani Agrawal sustained some injuries, the nature of the injuries is not such as would attract the provisions of Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, which requires that hurt must be caused in the course of committing robbery. The injury found, a simple contusion on the upper lip, is not sufficient in law to constitute the offence under Section 394 IPC. Rather, the factual matrix of the case more appropriately falls within the ambit of Section 392 IPC, which deals with robbery simpliciter. From the evidence on record, the offence of robbery involving gold ornaments, cash, and other articles stands established. However, the prosecution has failed to prove that any grievous or substantial injury was inflicted upon P.W.-10 or any other victim during the commission of the offence. Although the accused were allegedly armed, they did not inflict any injury upon the complainant Deepak Agrawal or his mother, nor did they make any overt act of physical violence beyond issuing threats. In light of the above, it would not be appropriate to sustain the conviction under Section 394 IPC. At best, the appellants can be held liable for the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC, which is a lesser but cognate offence. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ajit Singh vs. State of Haryana, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 335 has held that in the absence of serious or grievous injury during the commission of robbery, conviction under Section 394 IPC is not justified, and the appropriate conviction would be under Section 392 IPC. Relevant paragraph is quoted below for ready reference : 14 “5. It appears to us that there is force and justification in the contention of Mr Sushil Kumar. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not think that the appellant should be convicted under Sections 397 and 394 IPC. But in our view, on the basis of depositions of PWs 7 and 8 the appellant's conviction under Section 392 IPC should be sustained. The convictions under Sections 394 and 397 IPC do not appear to be justified. Such convictions are set aside. We therefore allow the appeal in part by setting aside the convictions and sentences under Sections 394 and 397 IPC but conviction under Section 392 is affirmed. The appellant is stated to have undergone sentence for more than five years. In the facts of the case, justice will be met if the sentence for offence under Section 392 IPC is reduced to the period of five years. The appellant would be released forthwith if he is not wanted in connection with any other criminal case provided by this time he has undergone detention for five years.” 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K. Balaji vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1157 of 2018 vide order dated 30.01.2025 has held as under : “12. We find force in the said submission of learned counsel for the appellant and hence we find that even if the charge under Section 397 of the IPC has been framed as against the appellant herein, as the knife in question cannot be termed to be a deadly weapon within the scope and ambit of Section 397 of the IPC, there is no proof that the appellant had used a deadly weapon. Consequently, the prosecution has been successful in proving the case against the appellant-accused only under Section 392 of the IPC. 15 13. Section 392, inter alia, states that whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Therefore, there is no minimum punishment which has been prescribed under the said Section and the maximum punishment is ten years. 14. We find that since Section 392 of the IPC is applicable to the case of the appellant herein. Since the appellant has undergone four years and eight months of incarceration and the maximum punishment is ten years, interest of justice would be served if the sentence is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant herein.” 14.
Decision
In view of the above legal analysis of Hon’ble Supreme Court and upon careful examination of the evidence on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that while the occurrence of robbery at the residence of the complainant is duly established, the essential ingredients to sustain a conviction under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, namely, that hurt was caused in the course of committing robbery are not fully satisfied. The medical evidence reveals that the injury sustained by the victim was a minor contusion, and the same does not rise to the level contemplated under Section 394 IPC. 15. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants under Section 394 IPC is liable to be set aside, and they are instead held guilty of the lesser offence under Section 392 IPC. Furthermore, the conviction under Section 450 IPC (house trespass to commit an offence punishable with life imprisonment) is sustained, as the evidence demonstrates unauthorized entry into the dwelling house with the intent to commit robbery. However, considering the quality of evidence, the fact that 16 several witnesses turned hostile, the minor nature of injuries, the substantial period of incarceration already undergone by the appellants, and the fact that they were on bail during the trial and appeal proceedings, and it would be just and appropriate to modify the sentence imposed. As per learned counsel for the appellant, appellant No. 1 has completed about 6 years of R.I. and appellant No. 2 has undergone about 6 years and 5 months of R.I., which, in the considered opinion of this Court, would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice for the offences proved. 16. The sentence awarded to the appellants under both Sections 392 and 450 IPC is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone. The appellants’ bail bonds shall remain in force for a further period of six months in accordance with Section 437-A of the CrPC. 17. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part and disposed of in the manner indicated hereinabove. 18. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned and the copy of this judgment be supplied to the concerned Superintendent of Jail, forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shayna