Dismissed

Chandra Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 Nov 2017CRR/717/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court of Chhattisgarh rejected the applicant's challenge to his conviction and sentence for escaping from custody under Section 224 IPC. The Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the constables' testimony was reliable and unshaken during cross-examination. Consequently, the revision was dismissed, the sentence upheld, and the applicant directed to be taken

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; sentence affirmed; applicant directed to be taken into custody to serve sentence; bail bond cancelled.

Chandra Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

CRR No. 717 of 2006

¶4

Chandra Kumar S/o. Late Shri Mannu Lal, Aged about 48 years, R/o. Village Paraddih, Police Station Dondilohara, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶5

---- Revisioner/Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. Balod, District Durg (C.G.)

¶8

---- Respondent

¶9

For Applicant : Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Anil S Pandey, Govt. Advocate

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board

¶11

09.11.2017

¶12

1. This revision is preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.11.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, Session Devision Durg, District Durg in Criminal Appeal No. 287/2005, wherein the said Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balod District Durg on 13.05.2005 in Criminal Case No. 1890/2004, convicted the applicant/revisioner under section 224 of the IPC and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-.

¶13

1. The revisioner was charged under Section 224 of the IPC for escaping from the custody in which he was lawfully detained. On 04.11.1992 the date of hearing of the revisioner was fixed in the Court of Kawardha and he was in custody of constable Danush Kumar (PW-1) and constable Deep Narayan (PW-3). When they were returning from Kawardha to Balod by Bus, the revisioner

¶14

¶15

escaped from the custody of both the constables. The matter was reported to Police Station Balod. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellants before the trial Court. The trial Court considering the material available on record by the impugned judgement convicted and sentenced the revisioner as mentioned above.

¶16

1. Counsel for the revisioner submits that version of Danush Kumar (PW-1) and Deep Narayan (PW-3) is contradictory and the trial Court overlooked omission in their evidence and came to a wrong conclusion and convicted the applicant. He further submits that there is no independent witness to prove the factum of absconding of the revisioner.

¶17

1. Per contra, learned State counsel supporting the impugned judgment has submitted that the judgment of the trial Court is strictly in accordance with the law and well founded and there is no illegality or infirmity in it warranting any interference by this Court invoking the jurisdiction of revision.

¶18

1. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶19

1. Danush Kumar (PW-1) was constable at the relevant time. He deposed that the applicant was charged for a crime and his date of hearing was fixed before the Court at Kawardha. He was in custody of this witness and when they were returning from Kawardha to Balod by bus, the revisioner escaped from the custody of this witness. Version of this witness is supported by version of Deep Narayan (PW-3) who was present at the time of

¶20

¶21

incident and again supported by the version of J.S. Madhavi (PW4) who recorded the FIR in the present case. Version of Danush Kumar (PW-1) is unshaken during the cross-examination and the view taken by the trial Court and also the Appellate Court is well founded on the basis of evidence adduced in the case. It is not a case where the conclusion arrived at on irrelevant fact. It is also not the case where the relevant facts overlooked by the Courts below. There is no illegality or infirmity in the judgement passed by the Courts below warranting any interference by this Court invoking the jurisdiction of revision.

¶22

1. Heard on sentence part. As the act of the applicant is clearly against command of law, he deserves no leniency in sentence. The learned Courts below have been just and proper in sentencing the accused to one year rigorous imprisonment. The revision is sans substance and is dismissed.

¶23

1. The applicant is reported to be on bail. The applicant be taken into custody forthwith to serve the sentence. The bail bond of the applicant shall stand cancelled.

¶24

Sd/(Ram Prasanna Sharma) JUDGE

¶25

Santosh

Chandra Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramawtar Pando Vs State of C.G.

Anand Prasad Gupta Vs the State of C.G.

Devendra Manjhi @ Pinku Manjhi Vs the State of M.P.

Sampat Dharvaiya Vs State of C.G.

Sanjay Kumar Sahu Vs Smt. Nisha Sahu

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Nidhi @ Presha Jain