High Court revisee conviction confirmed for snatching offence but reduced sentence by awarding release equivalent to time already served in custody. No additional imprisonment ordered having applicant undergone over eight months.
Appellant freed after serving period already undergone; conviction maintained but no additional sentence imposed.
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. 48 of 2005
---- Applicant
---- Respondent
For Applicant : Shri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Wasim Miyan, PL
Hon 'ble Smt.Justice Rajani Dubey
Order On Board
03/10/2019
The present revision arises out of the impugned order and judgment dated 10.12.2004 passed by the Sessions Judge, Raipur in Cr. Appeal No. 288/2004 whereby the learned appellate Court below has confirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused/applicant as awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate first Class, Raipur vide its judgment dated 28.10.2004 in Cr. Case No. 132/2004 for the offence under Section 392 IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for two years with fine of Rs. 200/-, plus default stipulation.
at the house and her husband has gone to work, the applicant came to her and asked her to give the jewelery for cleaning, she removed the anklets and gave it to him and went inside the room. It is alleged that when she went inside, the applicant also followed her and snatched the mangalsutra and was about to run, she shouted and then the people of the nearby vicinity caught hold of him and handed him to the police. Investigation was done and charges were framed against the accused/applicant under Section 392 IPC.
revision as far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to the counsel for the applicant, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2004 and the applicant has already remained in jail for about more than 8 months, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the accused has remained behind the bars for considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 392 IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by him, since no useful purpose would be served by sending the applicant again to prison and prayed for leniency. To this, counsel for the State has no serious objection.
Sd/(Rajani Dubey) Judge
suguna
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the sentence awarded in the impugned judgment should be modified considering the period already undergone in custody without fresh imprisonment serving any useful purpose.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Karu Shah
State Of Chhattisgarh
Rajani Dubey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
