Criminal Appeal No. 1680 of 2024 · Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:15248 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 1680 of 2024 Ramdular Chouhan S/o Bhagau Chouhan Aged About 23 Years R/o Bijrabhatha, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. … Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent ___________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, PL ___________________________________________________________
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment On Board 01/04/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The appellant has filed the instant appeal under Section 415(3) of BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.07.2024 passed in Sessions Trial No.28/2020 by the Court of First Additional 2 Sessions Judge, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :- Conviction Sentence In Default Section Under 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for 03 years --- Under Section 427 of Indian the Penal Code R.I. for 02 years --- Under Section 4 read with Section the 34 of of Prevention Damage of Public Property Act R.I. for 05 years and fine amount of Rs.500/- of In default payment of fine amount further R.I. for 02 months All sentences are directed to run concurrently 3. Briefly stated facts of the case leading to the disposal of this appeal are that on 12-02-2020, the report was lodged by Assistant Engineer alleging in that at Village Tipa, Devrakhar, the transformer of 16 KV was installed and on 11-02-2020, the contractual employee namely Governdhan Bhoi informed him through mobile that the transformer was lying on the field and oil of transformer have been stolen. On the basis of such report, the FIR was registered against the appellant and another person. 3 4. On the basis of said report, the matter was reported to the Police of Police Station Saraipali, whereby the offence under Sections 379, 427 read with Section 34 of IPC was registered against the appellant and another accused person. Subsequently, the matter being investigated by the police and after the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet before the concerned Court having jurisdiction. 5. On appreciation of evidence, learned trial Court framed the charges under Section 379, 427 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act. 6. To prove the guilt of appellant, the learned trial Court examined as many as 08 witnesses and in defence the appellant not examined any defence witness. 7. After completion of the trial, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him particular of which mentioned in para two of this appeal. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly been convicted the appellant without any sufficient and clinching evidence available on record against the appellant. He further contended that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that there are major contradictions and omissions in the statement of prosecution witnesses, hence, the warrant of conviction of the appellant is bad in law. It is pertinent 4 to mention here at this juncture, the testimony of PW-1 Gajanand Patel cannot be relied upon as per his version, he saw the appellant while cutting the nut-bolt, but the FIR was lodged by Teju Ram and the version of PW-1 while convicting the appellant cannot be relied upon. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the PW-2 Tula Ram and PW-4 Awadh Chouhan are the witnesses of seizure and PW-2 Tula Ram in his cross examination admitted this fact that nothing has been seized from the place of incident and so far PW-4 Awadh Chouhan is concerned, he also admitted this fact that he has signed the documents at Police Station, so prima-facie the witnesses of seizure not supported the case of prosecution so warrant of conviction of appellant is bad in law. It is further contended that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the deposition of PW-6 who was posted as Assistant Engineer and as per his version, on 10-02-2020, he has been informed by Goverdhan with regard to the damage of the transformer by unknown person and he lodged the report on 12-02-2020, so prima-facie there is delay in lodging the FIR. Further he admitted this fact that on being asked by Gajanand Patel, he lodged the report against the appellant and he also admitted this fact that the contents of written report Exp.5 has been written by him on being informed by Gajanand. It is pertinent to mention here at this juncture, the prosecution failed to prove it case beyond all reasonable doubts, hence the warrant of conviction of appellant is bad in law and the 5 same is liable to be set-aside. It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned judgment dated 27-07-2024, in the interest of justice. 9. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the State supports the judgment impugned and the findings recorded by the trial Court holding the accused/appellant guilty of offence being based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record are fully justified and do not call for any interference in this appeal. 10. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the judgment passed by the learned trial Court as well as other material available on record with utmost circumspection. 11. Gajanand Patel (PW-1) & Tularam (PW-2) have stated in their statement that they had gone to the field in their village Tipa. The accused Ramdular and another person who escaped took down the transformer installed in the field and opened it with a saw and a plank and took out 35 liters of oil from the transformer and kept it in a box and broke the porcelain. They had called the people of the village to the spot. They called 112 vehicle and electricity office from the spot. 112 vehicle came and took accused Ramdular to the police station. The next day the police called them to the police station, on which they went to the police station, the officer from the electricity office also went to the police station. The police interrogated the accused in front of 6 them, on which the accused told that they have taken out 35 liters of oil. The police prepared the damage panchnama Ex.P/1. 12. Assistant Engineer - T.R. Gajabhiye (PW-6) has stated in his statement that he received information on 11/2/2020 that a 16 KVA transformer installed for agricultural purposes in village Tipa Devlakhar has been dropped on the ground with the intention of theft. He was given the above information by Shri Govardhan, a contract employee working at Kosampali sub-centre. After receiving the information, he inspected the site and directed Govardhan to give full information about the incident. Govardhan informed that on the night of 10/2/2020, between 9 pm and 11:45 pm, an unknown person dropped the transformer from the ceiling and damaged it and stole the oil inside it. He was informed about the above incident by Shri Gajanand Patel of the village on 12/2/2020. He reached the site of the incident and inspected the incident. He saw that the transformer was removed from the pole and kept on the ridge on the edge of the field and oil was scattered around it. There was no oil inside the transformer. Two HT bushings of the transformer, R and B face, were out and lying outside. The middle bushing was in good condition. On looking inside both the out bushings, there were signs of burning of coil which indicated that an attempt had been made to burn it. 13. This witness has stated in his cross-examination (Para-5) that Govardhan informed him about the incident on 10/2/2020. 7 Govardhan informed him that he had received information that the transformer was lying under the pole. He also told him that some unknown person had taken away oil from it. On asking why he did not report on the 10.2.2020 the witness says that Govardhan got the information on the 11.2.2020 then he informed him on the 11.2.2020 after that he lodged the report. 14. Looking to the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, in considered opinion of this Court that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for the aforesaid offences. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment of the trial Court. Thus, conviction of appellant is hereby affirmed/maintained. 15. As regards the quantum of sentence, considering that incident in question took place in the year 2020 and now almost 05 years have passed. During these years, appellant must have suffered tremendous mental trauma and anguish of trial. Looking to the evidence available on the face of record, appellant has already undergone almost 11 months of substantive sentence imposed by trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that the maximum sentence imposed by trial Court upon the appellant (RI for 05 years) appears to be on higher side. So keeping in view all the circumstances, mentioned above, ends of justice will be served if the sentence imposed upon appellant under Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act is reduced from RI 8 for 05 years to RI for 02 years and under Section 379/34 of the IPC is reduced from RI 03 years to RI for 02 years. 16. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of the appellant under Sections 379/34, 427 of IPC and Section 4 read with Section 34 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act is hereby affirmed and the fine amount imposed upon the appellant shall remain intact. 17. With the aforesaid observations, the instant appeal is partly allowed to the extent shown above. 18. Records of the Court below be sent back along with copy of this judgment for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant