In a revision petition challenging a conviction under Section 457 IPC, the High Court upheld the conviction as correct but accepted the applicant's request to reduce the one-year sentence to the 21 days already spent in detention.
Conviction maintained; sentence reduced to the period of detention already undergone.
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. 540 of 2008
Chetan Sahu, S/o Bharat Sahu, aged about 25 years, R/o Village-Pasid, Police Station: Tumgaon, Tehsil & District: Mahasamund, (C.G.)
--- Applicant Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through: the District Magistrate, Mahasamund, Police Station:Tumgaon, Tehsil and DistrictMahasamund (C.G.)
--- Respondent
Order on Board by Hon'ble Smt. Vimla Singh Kapoor, J.
01.02.2019
Judgement under challenge in this revision petition is dated 01.08.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Mahasamund in Criminal Appeal No. 63/2008 confirming the findings recorded by learned JMFC, Mahasamund whereby the accused/applicant was held guilty under Section 457 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and pay fine of Rs. 400 plus default stipulation.
hold of him but he somehow managed to run away. After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against him u/s 457 IPC which culminated in framing of charge by the Court below under the said section.
account of being a moon lit night she had identified the person getting out of the house to be accused/applicant. Likewise, PW-2 - Sukhwati Bai, the mother-in-law of PW-1 has also corroborated the testimony of PW-1 stating that while the accused/applicant was trying to flee away, she had caught hold of him but he somehow succeeded in his pursuit of running away. PW-3 - the husband of PW-1 has also supported the version of PW-2. Thus, there is ample evidence to show that it is the accused/applicant who committed lurking house trespass in the house of the complainant and, therefore, the trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court have arrived at the correct conclusion holding the accused/applicant guilty u/s 457 IPC. Conviction, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and being so it is hereby maintained.
8. Revision allowed in part. Sd/-
(Vimla Singh Kapoor) Judge
Jyotishi/Rahul
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction under Section 457 IPC should be challenged in a revision petition.
Whether the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment imposed on the applicant should be reduced to the period already undergone.
Whether it is in the interest of justice to set aside the conviction or merely modify the sentence given the long lapse of time.
Chetan Sahu
State of Chhattisgarh
Vimla Singh Kapoor
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
