Appeal against conviction and sentence for dacoity. Appellants did not contest conviction but sought sentence reduction to time spent in jail. High Court reduced appellant No. 1's sentence to time served and extended bail.
Sentence of Appellant No. 1 reduced to the period already undergone. Bail bond extended for six months.
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
Cr.A. No. 2499 of 2000
Versus
For Appellants : Shri Rajesh Kumar Jain, Advocate For State : Shri Praveen Shivastava, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Judgement on Board
19.01.2023
-2-
door, entered into the room and asked them where is money and ornaments (silver-Gold) and thereby they have broken the Baggage of Kinneshwari and has taken items of Silver Pair Patti, Payal, Mala, Bichhiya and Rs.700/- and also snatched ornament of Ujobai namely Silver Mala, Kardhan, Payal, Khinawa and threatened them to kill, and also had taken watch from them which is not working and thereafter, they kept all the ladies in one room and closed the door from outside. When Dayaluram returned home in the morning after completion of duty then he came to know about the incident and thereafter he lodged report at Police Station-Gurur which is marked as Ex.P/2 and after investigation, white colour Iron Box, small old box, Attaichi and Cigarette piece were seized from the spot and spot map was prepared which is marked as Ex.P/10. One iron rod and Bamboo Stick were seized from the possession of the appellant and thereafter the challan was produced before the trial court for commission of offence against Naryan, Devi Prasad,Tejram, Pawan, Jeevan,Suresh Giri, Nandu.
-3-
I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The learned Trial Court has acquitted Devi Prasad, Tejram, Munna, Pawan, Jeevan from commission of offence u/S. 395/398 of I.P.C. and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
-4-
considering the Test Identification report has held that the appellant Narayan and Suresh Giri were involved in the commission of offence, therefore, they have been convicted for commission of offence under sections U/s. 395, 398 of I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act whereas other the accused were acquitted as no material has been brought on record by the prosecution against them. Two of the appellants namely Suresh Giri and Nandu were absconding, therefore no order is being passed against them. Thus the finding recorded by the trial court is legally justified and does not warrant any interference by this court in exercising its power u/s. 386 of Cr.P.C.
-5-
provided for commission of offence u/s. 398 is 07 year which the appellant has already undergone i.e. 07 years and 19 days and also considering the fact of the case that the incident is of the year 1991. I am inclined to reduce the sentence of 10 years of the imprisonment awarded by the trial court to the period already undergone by the appellant No.1.
months in view of section 437A of Cr.P.C..
Sd/(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
-6-
Ashish
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellants are entitled to a reduction of sentence to the period already undergone.
Whether the High Court can interfere under Section 386 Cr.P.C. regarding the conviction and sentence.
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Narayan
Surajgiri
State of M.P.
Narendra Kumar Vyas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
