Partly allowed

Vishnu Singh Rathia v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC13 Mar 2024CRA/512/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court affirmed the trial Court's judgment of conviction in a dacoity case involving multiple charges under the IPC and Arms Act. While the conviction was upheld, the substantive imprisonment for Section 395 IPC was reduced from 10 years to 7 years, deemed equivalent to the time already served, and bail bonds were ordered.

What did the court decide?

Conviction affirmed; imprisonment under Section 395 IPC reduced to 7 years; other sentences and fines affirmed; bail bonds ordered.

Vishnu Singh Rathia Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRA No. 1703 of 2017

¶5

1. Nandlal S/o Ramsingh Agariya, Aged About 30 Years R/o Bhuidand, Police Station Shyang, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶6

1. Dhansingh S/o Gendram Gond, Aged About 40 Years R/o Kanchira, Police Station Kapur, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ---- Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kapu, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent

¶9

CRA No. 507 of 2018

¶10

• Fir Singh Rathia S/o Ramdhan Rathia Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Kolga, Police Station Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant

¶11

Versus

¶12

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Kapu, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent

¶13

CRA No. 512 of 2018

¶14

• Vishnu Singh Rathia S/o Mohan Rathia Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Kolga, Police Station Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant

¶15

Versus

¶16

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Kapu, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh,

¶17

---- Respondent

¶18

¶19

CRA No. 1055 of 2018

¶20

Rajesh Das Mahant S/o Narayan Das Mahant Aged About 28 Years R/o Pasarkhet, Thana Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh,

¶21

Nand lal S/o Ramsingh Agariya Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Bhuidand, Thana Shyang, District Korba Chhattisgarh,

¶22

Dhan Singh S/o Gendram Gond Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Kanchira, Thana Kapu, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh,

¶23

---- Appellants

¶24

Versus

¶25

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Kapu, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶26

---- Respondent

¶27

For Appellants : Shri. Gajendra Sahu, Shri, Basant Dewangan, Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap and Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocates

¶28

For Respondent/State : Mr. B.D.Guru, Addl. Advocate General

¶29

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

¶30

Order On Board

¶31

14/03/2024

¶32

As all the above appeals arise out of judgment and order dated 21.09.2017 passed by the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh District Raigarh in Sessions Trial No.23/2017 convicting the accused/appellants in the above Criminal Appeals and sentencing them in the following manner, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶33

Conviction Sentence

¶34

u/s. 395 of IPC RI for 10 years and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further

¶35

¶36

undergo SI for two months (each of the appellants)

¶37

u/s. 397 of IPC RI for 7 years and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for two months (each of the appellants)

¶38

u/s. 458 of IPC RI for 7 years and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for two months (each of the appellants)

¶39

u/s. 386 of IPC RI for 7 years and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for two months (each of the appellants)

¶40

u/s. 25(1-A) of the Arms RI for 5 years and fine of Rs. 200/-, in Act default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for two months (to appellant No.1)

¶41

u/s. 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms RI for 1 year and fine of Rs. 200/-, in Act default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for two months (to appellant No.1)

¶42

u/s. 27(2) of the Arms Act RI for 5 years and fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for two months (to appellant No.1)

¶43

It is submitted by Shri Gajendra Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant through legal aid that the appellants No. 2 & 3 namely Nandlal and Dhan Singh have already filed appeal as Cr.A. No. 1703 of 2017 and there he does not want to press the appeal on their behalf.

¶44

In view of the above submission, the appeal on their behalf is dismissed as not pressed.

¶45

Brief facts of the case are that on 17.08.2016, the appellants assembled in the house of Dhansingh and hatched a conspiracy to

¶46

¶47

commit dacoitee in the house of the complainant Piyar Sai and at about 10.00 p.m., except appellant Dhansingh, all the accused persons entered the house of Piyar Sai Lakda (PW-1) armed with weapons-country made pistol ( desi katta ) and on the point of pistol, looted cash of Rs. 4,000/-, documents ( patta ) related to his land, bank passbook, torch and telephone cable. It is further case of prosecution that after committing dacoitee, they locked the family members of the complainant in the room and fled away. At the time of incident, son of the complainant Simon went to the police station and informed about the same and in the morning, the incident was narrated to the villagers. Police reached the place of incident and on 19.08.2016, the complainant lodged First Information Report (Ex.P1) at police station Kaapu. On the basis of the said report, Crime No. 74/2016 under Sections 458,386 and 34 of IPC was registered against four unknown persons. Spot map Ex.P-3 was prepared. During investigation, on 22.08.2016, on the basis of memorandum statement of the appellants Dhansingh, Vishnu Singh, Rajesh Das Mahant, Nandlal and Firsingh (Ex.P-5,6,7,8 & 9), the weapons of offence- desi katta and 3 live cartridges, three empty boxes, one blue pink color lining full shirt was seized from the possession of accused Vishnu Singh Rathia, one desi katta , one live cartridge and two telephone receivers were seized from the possession of Aasan Singh vide Ex.P-10, one desi katta , 2 live cartridges and one empty box of brass were seized from the possession of accused Fir Singh Rathia vide Ex.P-11, one desi katta, two live cartridges, one torch, four papers related to land ( patta ) and one T-shirt were seized from the possession of accused Rajesh Das Mahant vide Ex. P-12 , one

¶48

¶49

desi katta , one live cartridge were seized from the possession of accused Nandlal Aghariya vide Ex.P-13. Thereafter arrest memos were prepared vide Ex.P-31 to 35 and the appellants were arrested. After completion of investigation, the appellants were chargesheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 458,386,34,395 and 397 of IPC before the jurisdictional criminal Court and the case was committed to the trial Court for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which appellants/accused abjured their guilt and entered into defence by stating that they have not committed the offence.

¶50

In order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses.

¶51

The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellants as above against which the present appeal has been preferred.

¶52

Learned counsels for the appellants in all the appeals would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants. It is submitted that the test identification parade has not been conducted in accordance with law and therefore, the test identification parade was only a farce and it is liable to be rejected. It is submitted that the report was lodged against unknown persons and that the appellants have been falsely implicated. They would further submit that memorandum and seizure has been carried on by the prosecution in the presence of two witnesses namely Shivcharan Ekka (P.W.-06) and Udhoram Yadav (PW-4), and there were material omissions and contradictions in their statement. It is

¶53

¶54

further submitted that the memorandum and seizure has also not been proved in accordance with law, therefore, conviction of the appellants/accused persons is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that so far as the test identification parade is concerned, it was conducted in mere formality and is liable to be rejected and therefore, the conviction of appellants/accused is liable to be set aside. There are omissions, contradictions in the statements which does not inspire confidence to convict the appellants. On the basis of shaky evidence the appellants cannot be convicted for the offence. Hence, learned counsel prayed that the appeal be allowed and the appellants be acquitted of the charges levelled against them.

¶55

Learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsels for the appellants/accused persons and submits that after detail appreciation of the evidence for the offence adduced by the prosecution, in the judgment, the trial Court convicted the appellants through a reasoned judgment; and as the judgment of conviction is well founded, the appeal for judgment of conviction be dismissed. Learned counsel for the State/respondent further submits that looking to the act of the appellants, the trial Court rightly sentenced the appellants, hence, the prayer for already undergone by the appellants are also not acceptable. Therefore, conviction recorded and sentence awarded to the appellants/accused persons for the aforesaid offences is unexceptionable and all these criminal appeals deserve to be dismissed.

¶56

¶57

Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and perused the records with utmost circumspection.

¶58

In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, I have perused the evidence adduced before the trial Court.

¶59

As regards complicity of the appellants in the crime in question, it has to be seen as to whether the conviction of the appellants for the aforesaid offence is based on proper appreciation of the facts of the case.

¶60

To this, learned counsels for the appellants submit that if the Court finds the judgment of conviction appropriate, then looking to the period of detention, as they are the first offender, no any previous similar offence is either adduced or proved and appellants in Cr.A. No. 1703 of 2017 namely, Nandlal and Dhansingh were aged about 30 and 40 years, appellant in Cr.A. No. 507 of 2018, namely Fir Singh Rathia was aged about 27 years, appellant in Cr.A. No. 512 of 2018 namely Vishnu Singh Rathia was aged about 26 years, and appellant Rajesh Das Mahant in Cr.A. No. 1055 of 2018 was aged about 28 years at the time of incident; looking to their age and the property looted, they be given an opportunity in the light of above facts. Learned counsels for the appellants further submitted that appellants are in jail since the date of arrest i.e. 23.08.2016. and they have served more than half of the sentence imposed on them. The maximum sentence awarded to all the appellants is R.I. for 10 years along with other substantive jail

¶61

¶62

sentences as mentioned above with a direction to run all the substantive jail sentences concurrently. There is no any minimum sentence prescribed for offence under Section 395 of the IPC for which the appellants have been sentenced with R.I. for 10 years. Looking to their period of sentence already served till date, they may be considered for reduction of the sentence.

¶63

On close and careful scrutiny of the evidence adduced before the trial Court, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for the offence they had committed; there is no illegality or impropriety committed by the trial Court in passing judgment of conviction against the appellants. The independent witnesses namely Santram (PW-12) and Vijan (PW-13) have stated that on the date of incident at about 10.00 am, after taking meals they were walking outside and at that point of time, two of the accused persons on the gun point, threatened them and took them to the house of the complainant. On reaching there, they knocked the door and when Piyar Sai opened the door they entered inside and in between other accused persons also entered and committed loot in the house of the complainant. They have also stated that they had committed maar peeth with them and then left the place. Further the important witnesses namely Shivcharan Ekka (P.W.-06) and Udhoram Yadav (PW-4) have identified the the accused/appellants. A conjoint reading of the evidence of the above witnesses i.e. PWs 4,6,12 & 13, it clearly establishes the involvement of the appellants in the commission of the offence. There is no reason to disbelieve their versions and we are satisfied that both the courts below rightly accepted their statements. Consequently, in the considered view of

¶64

¶65

this Court, the judgment of conviction passed against all the appellants requires no interference and is hereby affirmed.

¶66

So far as fine sentence awarded to the appellants are concerned, they are found guilty and sentenced for many offences with a direction that all the substantive jail sentences shall run concurrently along with set off under Section 428 of the Code. There is no any minimum sentence prescribed for Section 395 of the IPC; the appellants served the sentences as mentioned above i.e., about more than 7 years. They were in the age group of 26 to 40 years and first offender with no previous criminal history; also the property looted was worth Rs.4,000/- only. Considering the above facts and circumstances the fact that the witness , in the considered view of this Court, by granting the appellants opportunity to remain in society as law abiding people sentencing them to the period already undergone by them would meet the ends of justice.

¶67

Consequently, both the appeals filed on behalf of the appellants are hereby allowed in part. The judgment of conviction passed against all the appellants are hereby affirmed. Fine sentences awarded to the appellants by the trial Court are also hereby affirmed. So far as substantive jail sentences passed against the appellants under Section 395 of the IPC is concerned, I am of the view that ends of justice would be served if, instead of rigorous imprisonment of 10 years, the appellants are sentenced for the period of 7 years. However, the other substantive jail sentence under Sections 397,458 and 386 of IPC and Sections 25(1-A), 25(1B) (b) and 27(2) of the Arms Act are concerned, they are affirmed.

¶68

¶69

Appellant namely Rajesh Das Mahant in Cr.A. No. 1055 of 2018 is concerned, he is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled. He be dispatched to jail to serve out the remaining part of the sentence imposed upon him.

¶70

If the appellants have paid the entire fine amount awarded to them, they be released forthwith if not required in any other case. If fine amount has not been deposited, then the trial Court is directed to serve the appellants with default sentence till the realization of fine amount.

¶71

Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. the appellants are directed to furnish personal bonds in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with two reliable sureties in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶72

Consequently, the appeals are partly allowed.

¶73

Sd/-

¶74

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶75

suguna

Vishnu Singh Rathia v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Singh Rathia 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

Ramnaresh Chakradhari Vs Paltu Ram Sinha

Lakshminarayan Sahu Vs Manish Kumar Yadav

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Santosh Jha @ Satya Jha

Nandlal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Ghanshyam Motilal Gupta

Fir Singh Rathia Vs State of Chhattisgarh