Partly allowed

Hemlal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Mar 2022CRR/22/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged the conviction and sentence of the applicant for offences under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. The court confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the applicant in jail, noting that more than 18 years had elapsed since the incident and the applicant was on bail.

What did the court decide?

Conviction maintained; sentence reduced to period already undergone; bail bonds discharged.

Hemlal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRR No. 22 of 2009

¶5

Hemlal, S/o Bhagat Ram Patel, aged about 55 years, R/o Village- Khusrupali, Police Station- Bagbahra, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.).

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, through: Police Station- Bagbahra, District- Mahasamund (C.G.).

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Applicant :Mr. Rishabh Gupta on behalf of Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For Respondent/State :Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Dy. A.G.

¶11

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶12

Order On Board

¶13

11.03.2022

¶14

The present revision arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.12.2008 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 57/2008 whereby, the learned appellate court has confirmed the conviction and sentence of the applicant as awarded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund (C.G.) vide its judgment dated 31.03.2018 in Criminal Case No. 505/2007 for the offence under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulations.

¶15

Brief facts of the case are that on 02.08.2003, complainant Narendra Jain lodged the FIR against unknown persons stating that in the intervening night of 1/02.08.2003, some unknown persons entered the shop of complainant and has stolen the gold and silver ornaments. During the investigation, on the basis of the memorandum of the applicant, he has been made accused. After completion of

¶16

¶17

investigation, charge-sheet was filed and charges were framed under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC against the applicant.

¶18

So as to hold the accused/applicant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statement of the accused/applicant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he has denied the charges leveled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case.

¶19

Counsel for the applicants submits that he is not pressing the revision so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2003, and thereby more than 18 years have rolled by since then. The applicant has already remained in jail for about 126 days, and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶20

Learned counsel for the State has no objection to this preposition.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment.

¶22

Having gone through the material on record and the evidence of the witnesses Narendra Kumar Jain (PW-1), Kamal Kishore Jain (PW-2), Naveen Kumar (PW-3), Banshi Lal (PW-4), Shyam Lal (PW-5), Mahesh Kumar Harpal (PW-7), Vishnu Agrawal (PW-8), S.K. Sarkar (PW-9), Krashna Mahanand (PW-10) and K.L. Nand (PW-11) establishes the involvement of the accused/applicant in the crime in question beyond reasonable doubt. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by appellate Court below as regards conviction of the applicant under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC.

¶23

As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that incident had taken place in the year 2003, and further that the applicant had already

¶24

¶25

remained in jail for about 126 days, therefore, his sentence is liable to be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶26

In view of the above consideration, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the applicant, he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The applicant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

(Rajani Dubey) JUDGE

¶29

Ruchi

Hemlal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemlal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Andhra Bank Baloda Bazar Vs Jitendra Kumar Sahu

Smt.urmila Bai And Ors. Vs Vehicle Owner - Chandrabahadur Singh And Ors.

Rudro Ram Khutiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rohit Kumar Jaiswal Vs District Magistrate

Rajesh Singh Rana Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rakesh Kumar Mahout, Vs State of Chhattisgarh