In this criminal revision, the High Court of Chhattisgarh affirmed the conviction under Section 403 IPC but altered the sentence, reducing it to the period already served by the applicant given the case's age and his current settled life.
Sentence reduced to the period already undergone by the applicant.
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
Criminal Revision No. 305 of 2008
Judgment reserved on 08.01.2019
Judgment delivered on 19.02.2019
Brijesh Kumar S/o. Suresh Kumar, Aged 31 years, Caste Bhatta, R/o. Village Darri, Bartola, Police Station Gaurela, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through the District Magistrate, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.)
---- Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Ravindra Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent : Mrs. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vimla Singh Kapoor
CAV Judgment
By the judgment under challenge passed on 26.04.2008 by Additional Sessions Judge Pendraroad, District Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2008, the findings recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pendraroad, have been affirmed.
2. Facts of the case, in short, is that on 20.11.2005, Head constable Sushil Kumar Banchhor (PW-3) was on patrolling duty, he received a secret information regarding the applicant was
2
having a Hero Honda Splendor Motor cycle which was a theft property. When the papers were demanded by the police official, then the applicant could not show any paper and ultimately, he expressed that he has not having any document and the owner of the motor cycle could not be traced out. Ultimately, Istgasha (Ex.P-7) was registered against the applicant under Section 403 IPC.
3 . The trial Court found the accused/applicant guilty under Section 304 IPC, which in appeal has also been affirmed vide judgment impugned. Hence, this revision.
4 . Conviction is not being pressed on merit and the sole prayer made by the counsel for the applicant is confined to reduction of sentence imposed on the accused/applicant to the period already undergone on account of the fact that the case is quite old and the accused/applicant has already remained in jail for some time.
5 . State counsel however, supports the findings recorded by the both the Courts below.
6 . Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment impugned and the evidence available on record carefully.
7 . After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the evidence adduced against the applicant before the trial Court, it appears that the testimony of PW-3 and PW-4 appears to be acceptable and
3
therefore, it is proved beyond doubt that the applicant had a motorcycle with him and he could not show any papers and documents relating the motorcycle. He had found that motorcycle lying then, it was his duty to deposit that motorcycle in the nearest police station but instead of doing so, he was using the same and therefore, he committed an offence punishable under Section 403 IPC. Therefore, the findings of conviction recorded by both the Courts below appear to be fully justified. It is hereby maintained.
8 . As regards sentence, keeping in view the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 2005, that the accused/applicant has already remained in jail for a period of 15 days and further that by now he must be leading a well settled life saddled with innumerable responsibilities, this Court thinks it proper to reduce the sentence imposed on him to the period already undergone.
9 . With the above, the revision stands allowed in part.
Sd/-
(Vimla Singh Kapoor)
JUDGE
Santosh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone by the applicant.
Whether the conviction is sustainable on record with available evidence.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Brijesh Kumar
State of Chhattisgarh
Vimla Singh Kapoor
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
