Partly allowed

Santosh Kumar Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Aug 2022CRR/403/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Section 397 CrPC against conviction for theft under Sections 380 and 457 IPC, the Chhattisgarh High Court maintained the conviction but allowed the revision on the plea of sufficient sentence. The court modified the sentence to the period of 9 months and 22 days already undergone by the applicant during trial.

What did the court decide?

The conviction was maintained, but the sentence was modified to the period of 9 months and 22 days already undergone by the applicant.

Santosh Kumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRR No. 403 of 2010

¶5

Santosh Kumar Yadav S/o Shobharam Yadav, aged about 35 years, residence of Village Sankara, Tahsil Nagri, District Dhamtari, C.G.

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The District Magistrate Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Applicant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Priyamvadha Singh, Dy. G.A.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

10-08-2022

¶14

This revision petition has been brought by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant herein has filed the instant criminal revision challenging the impugned judgment dated 19.7.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2010, affirming the judgment of the conviction and order of sentence dated 8.3.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagri, District Dhamtari in Criminal Case No. 504 of 2009, whereby the applicant has been convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 380 and 457 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.200/and Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional RI for 1 month, respectively.

¶15

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.10.2009, when complainant – Rameshwar Lal Patel had gone to attend marriage

¶16

-2-

¶17

ceremony of his relative alongwith his wife, some unknown person entered into his house and committed theft of TV, VCR, Camera and GPS System and value of the stolen articles was about Rs.10,000/-. After investigation, police seized colour TV of LG Company, Dish TV receiver and one digital camera from possession of the present applicant and the same was identified by the complainant.

¶18

The police arrested the present applicant and one Anil Kumar in connection with the crime.

¶19

The matter was investigated by the concerned police and after investigation charge-sheet was filed before the competent criminal Court against the applicant and co-accused for commission of offence punishable under Sections 380 and 457 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.200/- and Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional RI for 1 month, respectively. The applicant and co-accused abjured their guilt and took the plea that they are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in this case.

¶20

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents to bring home the offence. Upon appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagri, District Dhamtari by its judgment dated 8.3.2010, convicted the applicant whereas, acquitted the co-accused – Anil Kumar by the learned trial Court.

¶21

In an appeal preferred by the applicant learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari vide its judgment dated 19.7.2010, affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Magistrate. Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment of the Appellate Court, the applicant has filed the instant criminal revision.

¶22

-3-

¶23

Shri Sunil Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that both the Courts below have committed legal error in convicting the applicant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 380 and 457 of the IPC by recording a finding, which is perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record. He would alternatively submit that the jail sentence awarded to the applicant is disproportionate to the gravity of the offence as the applicant has already remained in custody for a period of 9 months and 22 days, therefore, the period already undergone by the applicant be held to be sufficient sentence against the sentence awarded by the two Courts below and accordingly, the revision be allowed by modifying the sentence awarded.

¶24

On the other hand, Ms. Priyamvadha Singh, learned Dy. G.A. for the State would submit that the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded is based on the evidence available on record and it is best merited judgment concurrently recorded by both the Courts below and as such, no interference is called for by this Court in this revisional jurisdiction, therefore, the instant criminal revision deserves to be dismissed.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and records of both the Courts below with utmost circumspection.

¶26

10.Learned trial Magistrate in its judgment dated 8.3.2010 has clearly recorded a finding based on the testimony of the complainant and seizure of the stolen articles from possession of the applicant and that piece of evidence has not been rebutted by the applicant. Learned trial Magistrate after appreciating oral and documentary evidence has clearly recorded a finding that it is the applicant who committed theft in the dwelling house of the complainant.

¶27

-4-

¶28

On an appeal being preferred the Appellate Court has clearly affirmed the finding of the trial Magistrate holding that there is no infirmity in the finding recorded by the trial Magistrate and found the applicant guilty for the offences under Sections 380 and 457 of the IPC.

¶29

12.After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the record and taking into consideration the testimony of the witnesses and seizure memo, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by both the Courts below holding the applicant guilty for the offence under Sections 380 and 457 of the IPC and thus, I hereby affirm the finding so recorded by both the Courts below. Accordingly, the conviction of the applicant for the offence under Sections 380 & 457 of the IPC is hereby maintained.

¶30

13.Shri Sunil Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant remained in jail for 9 months and 22 days, therefore, taking a lenient view of the matter, the sentence awarded by the applicant RI for 3 years be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶31

14.Ms. Priyamvadha Singh, learned Deputy Government Advocate would submit that the stolen property was seized from the possession of the applicant and it is a clear cut case of theft and the same has been proved by the prosecution, therefore, the sentence awarded to the applicant is just and proper.

¶32

15.Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view that the incident had taken place on 15.10.2009 at that time the age of the applicant was 35 years, he remained in jail for 9 months and 22 days during the pendency of trial and appeal, therefore, I am of the opinion that the sentence awarded to the applicant, RI for 2 years and 3 years under Sections 380 and 457 of the IPC respectively should be modified to the period already undergone i.e. 9 months and 22 days as there is no minimum sentence

¶33

-5-

¶34

provided under Sections 380 and 457 of the IPC.

¶35

Accordingly, the instance criminal revision is partly allowed.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶38

Nimmi

Santosh Kumar Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar 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

Saurabh Agrawal Vs Indusind Bank Limited

Girdhar Prasad Gupta Vs Gopal Prasad Gupta

Smt. Kiran Devi Agarwal and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Raghuraj Singh Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Narendra Singh Chawla Vs Ramesh Kumar

Ajay Bani Vs Ganesh Kumar