Partly allowed

Amar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC22 Oct 2024CRR/77/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against conviction under Section 379 IPC for theft of a tullu-pump. Conviction affirmed by both courts below. The High Court upheld the conviction but, noting 52 days already undergone and over 21 years of litigation, reduced the jail sentence to the period already undergone and affirmed the fine.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period already undergone (52 days); conviction and fine affirmed.

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

¶1

1 / 4

¶2

Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH YADAV YADAV Date: 2024.10.23 17:06:50 +0530

¶3

2024:CGHC:41945

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRR No. 77 of 2012

¶7

Amar Singh S/o Kaman Singh, aged about 18 years, R/o Village: Tappasevaiya, P.S: Pithora, District: Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶8

... Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh through the Police Station: Pithora

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

For Applicant : Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Advocate For State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A.

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

¶14

Judgment on Board

¶15

23.10.2024

¶16

1. This present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure arising out of the judgment dated 24.09.2011 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2006, whereby, the appeal of the applicant filed against the judgment dated 08.05.2006 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund, District: Mahasamund (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 955 of 2005 convicting and sentencing him as under:

¶17

2 / 4

¶18

Conviction	Sentence
U/s 379 of IPC	RI for 1 year with fine of
	Rs. 1,000/-, in default, SI
	for 9 months.

¶19

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, complainant Haldhar Nayak, lodged a FIR at Police Station: Pithora, stating that on 05.03.2003, some unknown persons have stolen tullu-pump from the court-yard. On the basis of said, he has lodged the FIR against the unidentified persons and offence under Section 379 of IPC was registered. During the course of investigation, as per the memorandum statement of the co-accused stolen property was seized.

¶20

3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund, District: Mahasamund (C.G.). The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty.

¶21

4. Learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in the Para No. 1. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 24.09.2011, dismissed the appeal while upholding the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, this revision.

¶22

5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction part of the applicant and confines his argument to the sentence part only, which is on higher side. He further

¶23

3 / 4

¶24

submits that the applicant was a young boy at the time of incident and has remained in jail for 52 days i.e. from 15.03.2003 to 07.04.2003 and 31.01.2012 to 28.02.2012 and he is facing the lis since 2003, i.e. for more than 21 years and the fine amount has already been deposited by the applicant. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶25

6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgment.

¶26

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

¶27

8. Considering the statements of complainant PW-1 Haldhar supported by the statement of PW-2 Gulam Mohammad, PW-3 Pusau Gond coupled with the evidence of PW-5 U.P.S. Bhadauriya (Investigating Officer) and other evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is correct finding.

¶28

9. Further considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the fact that the applicant has undergone 52 days and he is facing the lis since March 2003 i.e. for more than 21 years, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶29

4 / 4

¶30

10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant under the aforementioned sections is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is affirmed.

¶31

11. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

¶32

Sd/( Radhakishan Agrawal ) JUDGE

¶33

Saurabh

Amar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Singh 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

Sawla Kurre @Bita Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shrilal and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh @ Gudda Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amarnath Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Naresh Kumar Jagnayak Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh