Kiroti Nayak Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.02.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.19/2010 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal, while upholding judgment dated 30.12.2009 in Criminal Case No.998/2009 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pithora, Dist. Mahasamund convicting the applicant under Sections 457 & 380/34 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to undergo further SI for one month on each count while making it clear to run the sentences concurrently.

¶18

2 / 3

¶19

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant – Fuleshwar Singh is a Principal in Higher Secondary School, Jonk Sankara and on 12.09.2009, after closing the school, he went to his residence Pithora. On 13.09.2009, he was informed by his Clerk Yadav over phone about the robbery that took place in the computer hall, upon which, he rushed to the school and found missing of 2 computer monitors, 3 C.P.Us. 1 U.P.S. and 2 Boards. On the same date, the incident was reported to Police Station Pithora. On basis of his report, concerned Police Station lodged the F.I.R. for the offence punishable under Sections 457 & 380 IPC was registered and during investigation, the present applicant along with coaccused persons were apprehended and the stolen property was seized from them.

¶20

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pithora. The applicant and other co-accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence.

¶21

Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced him as shown in para 1. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 10.02.2012 has dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment passed by the JMFC Pithora as mentioned in opening para. Hence, this revision.

¶22

Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not challenge the conviction of the applicant, but challenging the finding of sentence part, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that during trial, the applicant was in jail from 27.10.2009 to 30.12.2009, 31.12.2009 to 17.02.2010 and then 10.02.2012 till 16.02.2012, in this way, the applicant incarcerated jail sentence for a period of 120 days. He has no criminal antecedents and is facing the lis since 2009, i.e. for more than 15 years and that the applicant was 21 years old at the time of incident. Besides, above, he submits that fine amount has been deposited. On these premises, he urged that the applicant may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

¶23

On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision while supporting

¶24

3 / 3

¶25

the impugned judgment

¶26

I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely.

¶27

Considering the evidence of complainant P.W.1 Fuleshwar Singh, Principal of Government Higher Secondary School, Sankara, P.W.2 Tulsi Das, P.W.3 Dipak Dewangan and also considering the statements of P.W.9 Komal Yadav, and other material documents available on record, I am of the view that both the trial Court as well as appellate Court have rightly convicted the applicant and I hereby affirm the same.

¶28

As regards jail sentence of the applicant, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering that the applicant was a young boy and he was in jail for a period of 120 days and that he is facing the lis since 2009, i.e., for more than 15 years and there are no criminal antecedents against him, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicant by the trial Court as well as by the appellate Court, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him while directing to run sentences concurrently. However, fine sentence imposed upon the applicant is maintained.

¶29

Consequently, the revision is allowed in part. The conviction of the applicant under the aforesaid sections is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall be in force for a period of six months as per the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

(Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE

¶32

Anjani

Kiroti Nayak v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiroti Nayak v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Nayak Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Yogesh Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deepak Kumar Patel Vs Laikhan Ram

Akash Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rameshwar Mishra Vs State Of C.g.

Chhedi Lal Satnami and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh