Partly allowed

Lakhan Lal Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Sept 2022CRR/277/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the applicant's conviction under Section 457 and 380 of the IPC but partly allowed the criminal revision, reducing the substantive jail sentence to the period already undergone while maintaining the fine.

What did the court decide?

Conviction maintained; substantive jail sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine sentence maintained.

Lakhan Lal Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRR No. 277 of 2011

¶5

Lakhan Lal Yadav, S/o Dashai Yadav, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Sarfi, P.S. - Madanpur, District Aurungabad, Presentlyh residing at Dhak Thana, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶6

---- Applicant/Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate, Mahasmund, District – Mahasamund, (C.G.)

¶9

---- Non-applicant

¶10

For Applicant – Mr. Parth Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State – Ms. Pushplata Khalkho, Advocate.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶12

14-09-2022

¶13

This criminal revision is directed against the judgment passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund in Criminal Appeal No.32/2011 dated 18-03-2011 affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the JMFC Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.) whereby the present applicant was convicted under Section 457 and 380 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I. for 1 month and to undergo R.I. for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I. for 1 month respectively with a direction to run both the jail sentences concurrently.

¶14

As per the prosecution case, the complainant Tikam Singh Dhruv (PW-3) lodged the FIR (Ex.-P/3) stating that on 15-09-2010 he went Raipur after closing his mobile shop and when he returned back on 02-10-2010 he found that the lock of the shop was broken and one watch, battery, 5 numbers of Nokia 1100 mobile, 2 numbers of LG battery, 1 Classic battery G5 battery, one G Five battery, 1 guild battery, 1 nokia 1600 handset and 2 headset Sony headphone were stolen. The

¶15

¶16

police registered the offence punishable under Section 457 and 380 of the IPC against the unkonwn person. During the investigation the applicant was arrested and on the basis of his memorandum statement the stolen articles were seized from the applicant in presence of the seizure witnesses. After investigation the police filed charge sheet for offence punishable under Section 457 and 380 of the IPC against the applicant.

¶17

The learned trial Court framed the charges under Section 457 and 380 of the IPC. The applicant abjured the charges and pleaded non-guilty. The prosecution examined five witnesses and exhibited documents. The learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence vide judgment dated 30-12-2010 convicted the present applicant under Section 457 and 380 of the IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in first paragraph of this judgment.

¶18

Against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the applicant preferred appeal before the Sessions Court and by the impugned judgment dated 18-03-2011 the appeal preferred by the applicant was dismissed by the learned appellate Court, against which the present criminal revision has been preferred.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there are contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Manmeet Singh (PW-1) has not supported the prosecution case, but he was not declared hostile. The independent witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. The applicant remained in jail for 7 months and 3 days, whereas, there is no minimum sentence prescribed for offence under Section 457 and 380 of the IPC, therefore, if this Court does not convince to acquit the applicant, then the sentence part may be reduced to the period already undergone by the applicant in jail.

¶20

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶21

¶22

Tikam Singh (PW-3) has narrated the incident and deposed that he has identified the stolen articles. Manmeet Singh (PW-1) and Durgesh (PW-2) have supported the seizure memo. Head Constable Shyamsunder Chandrakar (PW-4) has recorded statement of witnesses during investigation. ASI, Jeevan Sahu (PW5) is Investigating Officer, who lodged the FIR and seized the stolen articles, has supported the case of prosecution. The statement of the applicant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. where he took plea of implication.

¶23

From oral as well as documentary evidence the guilt of the applicant for offence under Section 457 and 380 of the IPC is proved. In the considered view of this Court conviction of the applicant recorded by the two Courts below does not require any interference by this Court.

¶24

Regarding the quantum of sentence, which is R.I. for 1 year awarded to the applicant for offence under Section 457 and 380 of the IPC learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is no minimum sentence provided under these sections and during the trial and pendency appeal and revision for a period of 7 months and 3 days and prayed for reduction of jail sentence from 1 year to the period already undergone.

¶25

Considering the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant particularly considering that the incident had taken place in the year 2010, there is no minimum sentence provided under Section 457 and 380 of the IPC and the applicant has already served 7 months and 3 days jail sentence, I am inclined to reduce the substantive jail sentence to the period already undergone by the applicant in jail. Consequently, this criminal revision is partly allowed. Conviction of the applicant under Section 457 and 380 of the IPC is maintained. However, the jail sentence imposed upon the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone by him in jail. The fine sentence is also maintained.

¶26

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶27

Aadil

Lakhan Lal Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhan Lal Yadav 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

Radheshyam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Fulmati Vs Injoriya Bai

Abc Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shiv Lal Kenwat and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Raja @ Shakti Mohammad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ram Panda Vs Smt. Kusum Panda