Partly allowed

Ramsingh Gawde and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC13 Apr 2018CRR/467/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed the criminal revision in part. The court affirmed the conviction for lurking house trespass and theft but modified the sentence by reducing the rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone, while maintaining the fine.

What did the court decide?

The rigorous imprisonment of two years each for offences under Sections 454 IPC and 380 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone; the fine amount remains intact.

Ramsingh Gawde and Another Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 467 of 2006

¶4

1. Ram Singh Gawade, S/o. Firturam Gawade, Aged about 20 years, R/o. Village Goregaon PS Kanker, Distt. Kanker (CG)

¶5

2 . Giridhari Ram Sahu, S/o. Barnuram Sahu, Aged about 25 years, R/o. Village Goregaon PS Kanker (CG)

¶6

---- Applicants Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Kanker, Distt. ---- Respondent

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Kanker, Distt. Kanker (CG)

¶8

For the applicants : Shri Abhishek Singh, Advocate on behalf of Shri Prakash Tiwari, Advocate For the respondent/State : Shri Bhaskar Payashi, Panel Lawyer

¶9

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board

¶10

13.4.2018.

¶11

1 . This revision has been preferred against judgment dated 04.7.2006 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Kanker, Session Division Bastar (CG) in Criminal Appeal No.79/2005 wherein the said Court while affirming the judgment of conviction modified the order of sentence passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanker in Criminal Case No.358/2004 wherein the trial Court sentenced both the applicants rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.200/- for offence under Section 454 IPC and RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs.200/- for offence under Section 380 IPC for committing lurking housetrespass or house breaking to commit theft in the house of one Shrawan Sahu at Village Goregaon in the afternoon of 24.02.2004. While modifying the sentence, the Court below has

¶12

¶13

reduced the sentence for RI for two years for the offence under Section 454 IPC but maintained the sentence for the offence under Section 380 IPC.

¶14

2 . The case of the prosecution is based on direct evidence of Shrawan Kumar (PW-1), Ganesh (PW-2), Sardhuram (PW-3), Smt. Seeta Devi (PW-5) and Baliram (PW-8). All of them stated in one voice that both the applicants were caught just after the incident and as per the evidence of Ganesh (PW-2), Yashwant (PW-4) and Sub Inspector RK Sai (PW-7), Rs.1060/- has been seized from applicant Giridhari and Rs.1500/- has been seized from aplicant Ramasingh. All the witnesses have been subjected to searching cross-examination, but nothing could be elicited in favour of the defence. Both the applicants denied the factum of seizure and had also not claimed the amount to be theirs. Case of the defence is plain denial and the same is merit less looking to the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution.

¶15

3 . It is established that on 22.4.2004 the applicants committed lurking house trespass in the house of Shrawan Kumar at Village Goregaon and stolen money from the house of Shrawan Kumar. The trial Court convicted the applicants for offence under Sections 454 & 380 IPC for lurking house trespass in order to commit theft and also committing theft and the first appellate Court affirmed the same. There is nothing to disturb the finding recorded by the both the Courts below and conviction of the applicants are hereby affirmed.

¶16

¶17

4 . Heard on the point of sentence

¶18

The applicants suffered jail sentence after dismissal of first appeal from 04.7.2006 to 04.8.2006 i.e. about more than a month. Their jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the fine amount shall remain intact.

¶19

5 . With these modifications the revision is allowed in part.

¶20

Sd/(Ram Prasanna Sharma)

¶21

JUDGE

¶22

Bini

Ramsingh Gawde and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramsingh Gawde and Another 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shakh Amedu @ Shekh Ahamed Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kalyan Singh Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh

Rajendra Prasad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tikam Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chamra Ram and Anr. Vs State of C.G.

Surendra Shande Vs State