, the High Court held that while the conviction was justified, the sentence should be modified given the twenty-five year lapse and the two months already served. The court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.
The sentence was reduced to the period already undergone by the applicants.
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.
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 221 of 2007
---- Applicants
Versus
---- Respondent
For Applicant : Shri C.R. Sahu, Advocate For State/Respondent : Smt. M. Aasha, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vimla Singh Kapoor
Order On Board
03 /12/2018
By this revision petition the applicants have assailed the judgment dated 18.04.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur in Criminal Appeal No. 01/2007 affirming the judgment dated 13.12.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Case No. 1240/2006 convicting the accused/applicants under Section 394/34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo RI for three years with fine of Rs. 500/- each, plus default stipulation.
the matter to the police and on his discloser statement the items including cash described above were seized from the possession of the accused/applicants. Axe and dagger were also seized from them. The articles so seized were identified by the complainant and also his wife in the presence of the witnesses. After registration of report under Section 394/34 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act, the matter was investigated culminating in filing of challan before the Court below.
accused/applicants have committed the offence alleged by robbing them of the cash, wrist watch and gold ear rings which were subsequently seized by the police on the discloser statement of the accused/applicants and duly identified by the complainant and his wife. Even the medical evidence also supports the case of prosecution stating that there was injury on the earlobe of the wife of the complainant. Considering all this, both the Courts below appear to have been fully justified in convicting the accused/applicants as mentioned above and there is no illegality in the same. Their conviction is thus maintained.
Sd/-
(Vimla Singh Kapoor)
Judge
Jyotishi/Pawan
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment imposed by the trial court should be modified considering the time lapse since the offence and period already undergone.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bhuneshwar
Dharamraj
State of Chhattisgarh
Vimla Singh Kapoor
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
