In a criminal revision challenging a Sessions Court order that reduced a sentence to three months rigorous imprisonment for theft, the High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the petition, finding the sentence not harsh and no illegality in the conviction.
The criminal revision was dismissed with no reduction in the sentence.
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.
Page 1 of 3
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 344 of 2011
---- Applicant
Versus
---- Non-applicant s
For Applicant – Shri Dharmesh Srivastava, Advocate. For State – Shri Sudhir Sahu, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board
08-09-2022
1 . This criminal revision is directed against the judgment passed by the learned V th Additional Sessions Judge Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No.117/2011 dated 24-06-2011 whereby the learned Court below affirming the conviction of the present applicant under Section 379 of the IPC, reduced the sentence from 1 year R.I. to 3 months' R.I. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Bilha, District Bilaspur in Criminal Case No.1184/2011 vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15-03-2011, convicted the present applicant under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for two months.
2 . As per prosecution story, on 29-04-2010 complainant Kushal Kumar Kaushik (PW-1) lodged the FIR at Police Station - Chakarbhattha to the effect that the motorcycle bearing No. CG 10E 7991 which is registered in the
Page 2 of 3
name of his younger brother, has been stolen by some unknown person on 15-04-2010. On such complaint the FIR for offence punishable under Section 379 of the IPC was registered against unknown person. During investigation police seized the motorcycle. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offence punishable under Section 379/34 of the IPC against the applicant and another co-accused namely Gopal Khairwar. The trial Court framed charges under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the present applicant and the co-accused. Both the accused abjured the guilt and pleaded non-guilty. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses and exhibited several documents in support of the case.
3 . After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court vide judgment dated 15-03-2011 acquitted co-accused Gopal Khairwar, however, convicted the present applicant for the offence under Section 379 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I. for two months.
5 . Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the motorcycle was seized from the house of some other person and on the same set of facts and evidence, co-accused Gopal Khairwar has been acquitted, therefore, he prays to acquit the present applicant. He further submits that the applicant has remained in jail for 14 days, therefore, the sentence part may be reduced to the period already undergone by the present applicant.
Page 3 of 3
10. The memorandum witness Jaleshwar (PW-4) has supported the case of prosecution and the seizure memo. Investigating Officer Alfans Toppo (PW-6) has stated that the memorandum statement was recorded according to the statement given by the applicant and seizure memo (Ex.-P/3) was recorded in presence of the witnesses and the motorcycle was seized from the house of in-laws' of the present applicant.
11. Looking to the facts of the case, as the motorcycle was seized from the house of in-laws' of the present applicant, the memorandum and seizure witnesses have supported the case and the learned lower appellate Court by showing leniency, has awarded the jail sentence of only three months and fine of Rs.2000/-, which cannot be said to be harsh. In totality of facts, I do not find any illegality in the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the lower appellate Court. Consequently, this criminal revision is dismissed.
Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge
Aadil
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment is harsh and demands reduction in a criminal revision.
Whether the motorcycle seizure from the applicant's in-laws' house and subsequent acquittal of co-accused necessitates acquittal of the applicant.
Jeetu @ Jitendra Shriwas
Rakesh Mohan Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
