Sadhu @ Roop Singh Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1 / 6

¶2

2024:CGHC:44583

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 932 of 2017

¶6

Sadhu @ Roop Singh S/o Late Nanku Singh, Aged About 30 Years R/o Lamatola, Mudghowapara, Police Station Kotma, District Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh., Madhya Pradesh

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Khadgawan, District Koria, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Appellant : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

14.11.2024

¶15

This criminal appeal has been filed being aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.05.2016 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.) in S.T. No. 111/2008 by which the Appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 392, 394 & 397 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

¶16

5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-, rigorous imprisonment for 7

¶17

2 / 6

¶18

years and to pay fine of Rs. 300/-, rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-, respectively with default stipulations. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

¶19

The prosecution story, in brief is that the on 21.01.2008 at about 7 PM, complainant Chain Singh was returning to his home along with Ashok Singh, when they reached near village Kcchod Gundrupara on way they saw the road was blocked and three persons less with clubs, sword and gun looted Rs. 1800/-, mobile phone one bag wherein some important documents and other articles were kept from the complainant. Thereafter, one person assaulted Ashok Singh due to which he sustained injuries and also looted from him Rs. 450/- and thereafter they all fled away from the spot. The matter was reported by Chain Singh. On the basis of said report, FIR has been registered. Statement of complainant and other witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

¶20

After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the Appellant, co-accused Sadhu @ Roop Singh who was declared absconded. A separate charge-sheet has been filed against another co-accused Ram Lakhan Patel in Juvenile Court. Trial Court has framed the charges.

¶21

In order to prove the guilt of the Appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses. No defense witness has been examined. Statement of the Appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. After trial, the trial Court has convicted

¶22

3 / 6

¶23

and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment.

¶24

In compliance of direction issued by this Court, the Secretary, Legal Services Authority has called status report from concerned Jail Superintendent wherein it has been mentioned that the appellant has already been released from jail on 17.03.2021 on completion of jail sentence awarded to him by the trial Court granting benefit of remission as he had already suffered 05 years, 03 months and 03 days of jail sentence out of maximum 07 years as awarded by the learned trial Court.

¶25

The record of the case would demonstrate that the prosecution to prove guilt of the appellant has examined as many as 20 witnesses and exhibited documents (Ex. P/1 to P/25).

¶26

The prosecution to prove guilt of the appellant has examined complainant Chainsingh as PW-2 wherein he has stated that on 21.01.2008, when he was returning to his home along with Ashok Singh, on way the Appellant and other co-accused persons looted them, assaulted them and ran away from the spot. Ashok Singh (PW1), Angpratap Singh (PW-3) and Ranbahadur Singh (PW-4) also supported the above statement of Chain Singh (PW-2). All these witnesses remained firm during their cross-examination. From the medical report of Ashok Singh (PW-1), it is also established that he sustained some injuries on his body Based on the information given by Chainsingh (PW-2), Khadgawan, police registered the case against the appellant for commission of offence under Sections 392, 394 and 397 IPC and under Section 27(1) of Arms Act.

¶27

4 / 6

¶28

The prosecution has also examined medical officer Dr. O.L. Barman (PW-6) who has treated the victims and opined that there was injuries were caused by hard and blunt weapon on their chest and right hand by which victims sustained simple nature of injuries.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit learned trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant only on the basis of statement of complainant Chainsingh (PW-2) and victim Ashok Singh (PW-1). Learned trial Court should have considered that the prosecution has been failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and ought to have considered that the complainants are not reliable witnesses as there are many discrepancies and omissions in their statement. Learned trial Court also failed to consider this fact that the memorandum witnesses namely Manish Kumar Jain (PW/9) and Arun Singh (PW-10) have specially stated that accused persons have not given any memorandum in their presence. Learned trial Court has also failed to consider the fact that the seizure witnesses namely Ashok Singh (PW-7) and Anand Verma (PW-15) have stated that articles seized from the possession of co-accused Jitendra, as such there is no seizure from the possession of appellant. He would further submit that the learned trial Court has failed to consider the fact that test identification parade was not conducted in accordance with law and also there is many martial discrepancies in the test identification parade as well as in the identification of articles and the whole case is based upon conjecture and surmises. He would further submit that when a situation of suspicion arises in any case, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused person, but in the

¶30

5 / 6

¶31

instant matter learned trial Court ignoring the golden principle of criminal jurisprudence has convicted the appellant. He would further submit that from the record it is quite vivid that the prosecution has not examined any eye witness to prove the allegation against the appellant, as such he would pray for quashing of the impugned judgment.

¶32

Per contra learned counsel for the State opposing the submission would submit that finding recorded by learned trial Court is legal and justified. She would further submit that learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence and material on record particularly statement of the victim and complainant who has narrated the incident which took place, as such he would submit that the present criminal appeal be dismissed.

¶33

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶34

In the Court statement of complainant Chain Singh (PW-2) deposed according to the case of prosecution. According to this witness, on 21.01.2008, when he was returning to his home along with Ashok Singh, on way the Appellant and other co-accused persons looted them, assaulted them and ran away from the spot. Ashok Singh (PW1), Angpratap Singh (PW-3) and Ranbahadur Singh (PW-4) also supported the above statement of Chain Singh (PW-2). All these witnesses remained firm during their cross-examination. From the medical report of Ashok Singh (PW-1), it is also established that he sustained some injuries on his body. During TIP the Appellant has been duly identified by the complainant and Ashok Singh. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution, prosecution also established

¶35

6 / 6

¶36

that during course of investigation on the basis of memorandum statement (Ex.P.12) of the Appellant, the looted properties have been seized from the Appellant.

¶37

This Court has gone through the evidence and material placed on record and from the appreciation of the same, it is quite vivid that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be unreasonable and contrary to the evidence brought on record by the prosecution proving the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse, illegal or contrary which warrants interference by this Court.

¶38

In view of the above, the instant appeal stands dismissed on merit.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶41

Manish

Sadhu @ Roop Singh v. The State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadhu @ Roop Singh v. The State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Sundar Agrawal Vs Gulbir Singh Bhatiya

Dhubai Charan Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abis Exports India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Mr. Perneti Dinesh Kumar

Santosh Rajwade Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

Motu @ Sarvajeet Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Moturam Vs State Of Chhattisgarh