In a criminal revision, the High Court upheld the conviction for housebreaking but modified the sentence, reducing the term served to the period already undergone.
Conviction under Section 456 IPC maintained; sentence reduced to time already served in custody; fine increased to Rs. 3,000/- with additional imprisonment for default.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
@@ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGQRH AT BILASPUR.
gRIMINAL gEVIsIONJE.kg [2002.
A PPLICANT n Khorbahra S/o Dhruv Yadav, (IN JAIL) Age 32 years, R/o village Rakhi s P.s. Abhanpur,'rahsil & Distt. Raipur (C.G) . \ r
£f
u ygRss
RESP ONDNTE q- state of chhattisgarh, s Through Station Officer, P.S. Abhanpur, Tah.& Distt. Raipur (C.G).
MWO OF REVISION UNDER SECTION 397
CRIM INAL PROCEDURE
HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARH BILASPUR
CriminalRevisionNo.125of2002
Khorbahra APPLICANT: (InJail)‘ Versus _
RESPONDENT: State ofChhattisgarh
{RevisionunderSection397CriminalProcedureCode}
Preseni:
Mr.VivekRathore‘ counsel fortheapplicant. Miss SangeetaMishra,PanelLawyerfortheState. »/’
u f ‘ » SingieBench:Hon’bleMr.T.P.Sharma,J ORDER £ . (7-9—2012)
.
(7-9—2012)
legality and proprietyofthe _, 1. By thisrevision,théappiicanthaschalienged judgmentdated 11-2-2002 passedbytheSpecialJudgeundertheNDPS" Act and AdditionalSessionsJudge, Raipur in CriminalAppealNo.330/99, affirming the judgmentofconvictionandorderofsentencedated 12-8-99 by the Judicial Magistrate First Ciass, Raipur in Criminal Case passed No 639/98 whereby and whereunder the trial Court after holding the applicant guiltyforcommissmnoftheoffenceofhousebreaking,conVIcted the applicantunderSection456oftheIPCandsentencedhimtoundergo Rl for one year& payfineofRs.500[—,indefaultadditionalSlforonemonth
%
Page 2 of 2
Cr‘R.No. 125/2002
@
under Section 456 of the IPC, both the Courts below have not committed, any illegality.
l;al
:? sw-
Soma
T.P.Sharma V Judge 2 ,/l
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction of the applicant under Section 456 IPC.
Whether the sentence imposed on the applicant required reconsideration given his custody period.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Khorbahra
State of Chhattisgarh
T.P. Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
