Appeal against conviction and sentence for robbery and extortion. The High Court found evidence sufficient for conviction but reduced imprisonment term from ten/five years to seven years for all appellants while leaving the fine untouched.
Conviction upheld; sentence reduced to seven years' imprisonment for all appellants; fine left untouched.
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
CRA No. 1016 of 2017
Soni @ Sonu Pardhi S/o Komal Pardhi, Aged About 32 Years Occupation Manihari Goods, R/o Neemdahna, Police Station Sultanpur, District Raisen, Madhya Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh --- Appellant
--- Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent
CRA No. 1934 of 2017
---- Appellants Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Charkradhar Nagar, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent
Order on Board by Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
04/08/2022
Since both these appeals filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure arise out of the same judgment dated 02.03.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Sessions Trial No. 120/2016, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
-2-
lants have been convicted and sentenced as hereunder:-
| Conviction | Sentence |
|---|---|
| U/s 395 IPC | RI for 10 years and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for 05 months |
| U/s 397 IPC | RI for 5 years and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for 05 months |
-3-
-4-
causing him injury with rod gets complete corroboration from two other witnesses namely Soumya Tiwari (PW-2) and Pramath Tiwari (PW-3). The version of PW-1 to PW-3 has been duly supported by the testimony of Dr. Dinesh Kumar Patel (PW-5) who has categorically stated that having seen three missed calls from the victim, he called him back and came to know through his wife (PW-2) about the incident of loot. Dinesh Kumar Patel (PW5) has further stated that when he went to the house of the victim, he saw the household articles lying dispersed and there was injury in the leg of the victim. Factum of Dehati Nalisi (Ex.P-1) on the basis of which FIR Ex.P-37 was registered, and medical examination of the victim under Ex. P-29 gets support from the testimony of Sushanto Banerjee (PW-11). Dr. Neelkusum Bala (PW-12) has stated that on 7.6.2016 the victim was brought to her for medical examination who vide report Ex.P-36 has opined that there was an injury in the size of 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm on his foot which was caused with hard and rough object. Further, in the test identification parade conducted by Naib Tehsildar (PW-14) in the premises of Tehsil Office, Anand Tiwari (PW-1) and Pramath Tiwari (PW-3) identified accused Soni alias Sonu Pardhi, Swayamvar Singh and Bukki by putting their hand on his head under Ex. P-2 and P-3 respectively. Since the accused persons have been identified in the Court as well, mere variation in the dates of identification, as pleaded by the defence side, does not become fatal to the case of the prosecution. Apart from PW-1 and PW-3, Soumya Tiwari (PW-2) had also identified the accused persons in the Court, to be the persons who had entered her house, committed loot and caused injury to PW-1. From the testimony of victim (PW1) it is evident that he had identified the miscreants in the light of the torch though he could not point out as to which of the accused persons had held the torch. He however has clarified that the torch was being flashed contnuously. Thus from the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 it is apparent that they identified the culprits beyond doubt and there is no reason to discard the factum of identification established from their testimony. Further,
-5-
on the basis of memorandum statement (Ex.P-7) of accused Sonu alias Soni Pardhi, one black colour bag containing crowbar like implement, one screwdriver, gupti like weapon was seized under Ex.P-9, and the gold and silver ornaments including chain, ring tops, silver coins etc and cash of Rs. 1300/- were seized under Ex. P-8 which has been proved by independent witness to seizure namely Sohan Lal Patel (PW-4). This apart, as is evident from the evidence of Amit Shukla (PW-10), accused Bukki alias Tunni Dhanraj and Sangram Singh Chouhan had disclosed to him in presence of the witnesses that out of the amount looted, they got recovered Rs. 740/- and 480/- and the remaining amount was spent by them. Similarly, on the disclosure statement of accused Swamvar, certain ornaments and one samsung mobile phone were recovered from near the railway track under Ex. P-15. On the disclosure statement of accused Bukki alias Tunni, certain ornaments were recovered under Ex. P-16. The ornaments were duly idntified by Soumya Tiwari (PW-2) in the identification proceedings conducted by Shivnandan Sahu (PW-7) in the Tahsil office. Since the recovery of articles is established under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a presumption can safely be drawn under Section 114-A thereof against the accused/appellants, and the burden of proof to the contrary lies upon them, which they have not been able to do in this case.
-6-
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction of the appellants for robbery and extortion is sustainable in view of the evidence.
Whether the sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed on the appellants requires to be reduced.
Whether the testimony was sufficiently corroborated to sustain the conviction.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Soni @ Sonu Pardhi
Bukki @ Tunni Dhanraj Salunke
Soyambar Salunke @ Swyamvar
Sangram Singh Chauhan Pardhi
State Of Chhattisgarh
Sachin Singh Rajput
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
