Dismissed¶¶77

Komal Singh Chandra v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Jul 2025CRA/253/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bibhu Datta Guru, J., 15/07/2025, CRA No. 253 of 2016) dismisses appeal of Komal Singh Chandra and upholds conviction under Sections 397 and 120-B IPC (RI 7 years + Rs. 5,000 fine each) for the 02/02/1999 armed robbery of Rs. 13,56,493/- teachers'-salary cash near Katia Naka; conspiracy held proved via Section 10 Evidence Act on PW9's sighting of the appellant counting looted notes with co-accused and recovery of loot from his house; bail cancelled, appellant directed to surrender.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant; his bail bonds were cancelled and he was directed to surrender forthwith and/or be taken into custody for serving out the remaining sentence. ¶¶77

Komal Singh Chandra Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant; his bail bonds were cancelled and he was directed to surrender forthwith and/or be taken into custody for serving out the remaining sentence.

¶¶77

Issue for consideration

Whether the present appellant was involved in the crime in question (the 02/02/1999 robbery), i.e., whether his conviction under Sections 397 and 120-B IPC can stand notwithstanding that he was not present on the spot when the money was looted.

¶¶58

Court's answer

The statements of PW1–PW5 (eyewitnesses of the 02/02/1999 incident) corroborate one another and establish that on the date of incident the accused persons looted the money being carried for payment of teachers' salaries and fled after keeping it in a sack.

¶¶57

Ratio / Principle

Where prima facie evidence of the existence of a conspiracy is given and accepted, evidence of acts and statements made by anyone of the conspirators in furtherance of the common object is admissible against all the conspirators.

¶¶71

Key takeaways

Although the appellant was not present on the spot when accused Lakhan and others looted the money from the vehicle, he was a party to the conspiracy: PW9 saw him at the house of accused Lakhan when the looted money was being taken out of the sack, and the looted money was recovered from his house; in light of Section 10 of the Evidence Act these acts categorically attribute his involvement in the conspiracy.ratio¶¶75
The prosecution completely proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant; his conviction by the trial Court was correct and does not warrant interference.ratio¶¶76

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Bibhu Datta Guru, J.), CRA No. 253 of 2016, decided 15/07/2025 — Criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C against judgment dated 09/02/2016 in Special Sessions Trial No. 218/2006 (I Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti) convicting the appellant, Komal Singh Chandra, under Sections 397 and 120-B IPC and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with a fine of Rs. 5,000 under each head, for the 02/02/1999 robbery of Rs. 13,56,493/- of teachers'-salary cash from a vehicle near Katia Naka. The appellant had absconded repeatedly during the prolonged trial (rearrested 18/06/2013 and again 06/06/2015 on permanent arrest warrants). Although he was not present at the spot when co-accused Lakhan and others looted the vehicle, PW9 Vikas Rajput saw him with co-accused Lakhan and Saundha taking bundles of looted notes out of a sack at Lakhan's house, hefty looted money along with a motorcycle was recovered from his house (PW34 Umesh Sharma, memorandum/seizure witness), and even his father Mohit Ram admitted the seizure of money from the appellant's house. Applying Section 10, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (things said or done by a conspirator in reference to the common design, admissible against all conspirators), the Court held the appellant a party to the conspiracy and that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Appeal dismissed; bail bonds cancelled with direction to surrender forthwith and/or be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence.

CRA No.253 of 2016

NAFR

2025:CGHC:33004

Digitally signed by K GOWRI K GOWRI SANKARA SANKARA RAO RAO Date: 2025.07.17 13:25:47 +0530

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

CRA No. 253 of 2016

¶8

Komal Singh Chandra S/o Mohit Ram Chandra Aged About 42 Years R/o Tikrapara, Raipur, Police Station - Tikrapara, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh

¶9

Appellant

¶10

versus

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Baradwar Wrongly Mentioned As Dabhra District - Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh

¶12

Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. H.S. Patel, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. AG

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board

¶14

15/07/2025

¶15

Heard.

¶16

This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09/02/2016 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 218/2006 by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 397 and 120-

¶17

¶18

CRA No.253 of 2016

¶19

(B) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs. 5000/- and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine Rs. 5000/-, respectively, with default stipulations.

¶20

There were total 7 accused persons involved in crime in question and a separate trial was conducted for accused- Lakhan, Mohit Ram Chandra, Chitranjan Chandra and Tosh Kumar Sahu, wherein, except Lakhan Bhaina, all three other accused persons have been acquitted in Sessions Trial No. 166/1999. Though, in the Sessions Trial No. 420/1999, Narendra Kumar Mishra was acquitted, Soedha Bhaina is still absconding. Regarding present appellant, separate trial has been commenced, since he was also absconding from the date of incident and he surrender on 01/10/2004.

¶21

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 02/02/1999 at about 14:45 to 15:30 hrs, Complainant Fekulal Kashyap, Kartikram Kashyap, Rameshwar Yadav, Assistant Teacher Kumar Singh Chandra were going to village in a vehicle bearing registration No.MP 26 E/8129 carrying Rs. 14,46,493/- from State Bank of India, Sakti to pay the same to the teachers. The said vehicle was being driven by driver Prabhakar Chandra. Out of the said amount of Rs. 14,46,493/-, about Rs. 90,000/was kept in a separate bag for payment of salary to teachers of Raipura and the remaining amount of Rs. 13,56,493/- was kept in a box at the back of the vehicle. When they reached near Katia Naka in village Chitapadariya Road, three persons came on a motorcycle and after beating the driver, boarded in the vehicle. One person started driving the

¶22

¶23

CRA No.253 of 2016

¶24

vehicle by sitting on the driver's seat and after taking the vehicle near the drain, they threatened the Complainant and other persons and looted Rs. 13,56.493/- and during the robbery, one of the robber fired a firearm at the driver Prabhakar Chandra and injured him and the remaining two robberers were carrying sharp-edged weapons and after filling the money in a sack, they fled away on a motorcycle. When they were filling the money in the sack, another person also came on a cycle. The robberers threatened him and chased him away. After the robberers fled, Fekulal along with the said person, who was chased away by the robbers, went to the house of Sarpanch Kanhaiya Lal Sidar and informed him about the incident. Thereafter, when the Complainant Fekulal Kashyap went to Baradwar police station and gave information regarding the incident, the Baradwar police station registered the crime and took the case into investigation.

¶25

During the investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded. From the spot, articles, clothes, box of tin, pieces of plastics etc. were seized and seizure memo were prepared. Two pieces of bullets taken out from the body of injured Prabhakar Chanda were seized and seizure memo was prepared. Injured Prabhakar Chandra was medically examined. The accused persons were interrogated and their memorandum statements were recorded.

¶26

On the basis of memorandum of accused Lakhan Bhaina, Rs. 1,95,000/- was seized from him and seizure memo was prepared. Rs. 30,000/- was seized from accused Lakhan Bhaina’s wife Tiharinbai and

¶27

¶28

CRA No.253 of 2016

¶29

seizure memo was prepared. On the basis of memorandum of accused Mohit Ram, motorcycle Yamaha number MP 26 K / 7594 used in the crime and Rs. 5.60,000/- were seized and seizure memo was prepared. On the basis of memorandum statement of accused Badharam alias Roop Singh, Rs. 20,000/- was seized from him and seizure memo was prepared. The accused were arrested. Identification proceedings of the accused were conducted. A map of the scene of the incident was prepared by the Patwari.

¶30

It is worth mentioning here that the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti passed the judgment on 12/05/2003 in Sessions Case No. 166/1999 State vs. Lakhanlal and others. The charge sheet in the said case was not presented by Baradwar Police Station for absconding accused Komal Singh Chandra and other two accused Saudha Bhaina and Narendra Mishra. Thereafter, a separate supplementary challan was presented by Baradwar Police Station against accused Komal Singh Chandra, when he surrendered. Then the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti, sent the case to the District and Sessions Court, Bilaspur on 07/03/2005 as the case was to be tried by the Sessions Court. From where on 23/03/2005 the case was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti for disposal, but during the trial of the case the accused Komal Chandra absconded again, so a permanent arrest warrant was issued against the accused and the case was sent to the archives with instructions to keep it safe. Thereafter, in compliance of the said permanent arrest warrant, on 18/06/2013 the accused Komal

¶31

¶32

CRA No.253 of 2016

¶33

Chandra was again arrested and produced and the trial in this case was started again. Thereafter, the accused Komal Singh Chandra absconded again in the year 2014, on which a permanent arrest warrant was again issued against him on 18/02/2015 and the case was sent to the archives with instructions to keep it safe, thereafter, in compliance of the said permanent arrest warrant, on 06/06/2015 the accused Komal Singh (henceforth ‘the appellant’) Chandra was arrested and produced, the trial in this case was started.

¶34

Subsequently, the appellant was charged with the crime under Section 120 (B), 395, 397 of IPC and Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act. After the contents of the alleged crime were read out and explained to him, he denied the charges and sought trial.

¶35

In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 60 witnesses in its support. Statements of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter.

¶36

The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 09/02/2016 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶37

Mr. H.S. Patel, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There are dissimilarities amongst the statement of the prosecution witnesses and

¶38

¶39

CRA No.253 of 2016

¶40

the same cannot be relied upon. He would further submit that as per the evidence of the witnesses, the appellant was not present on the spot. There is no seizure of any incriminating article made from the appellant. He would submit that the Test Identification Parade (TIP) has not been conducted properly, therefore, the impugned order of conviction is unsustainable and deserves to be set-aside.

¶41

Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, learned Dy. AG appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and submits that the conviction of the appellant is well merited which does not call for any interference.

¶42

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

¶43

PW1- Rameshwar Prashad Yadav has stated in his examination-in-chief that on the date of incident, he along with other, left for Sakti from Jaijaipur in a jeep/taxi at about 9:00. He stated that Kartikram Kashyap, Accountant of Jaijaipur office, withdrew Guruji's salary of Rs. 13 lakhs from State Bank of India, Sakti. They left for Jaijaipur in a taxi/jeep at about 1:30 in the afternoon. He stated that when they reached ahead of Baradwar and on the bank of the canal, a very loud sound was heard and dust was also raised there, so the vehicle slowed down there. After that, Feku Guruji and Guruji Kumar get down from the jeep to see the jeep. After that three persons came towards the jeep on a motor cycle, two of them made Kumar and Feku seated in the jeep. One person sat next to

¶44

¶45

CRA No.253 of 2016

¶46

him and one person went near the driver and one person was near the motor cycle. The person sitting next to him was accused Lakhan. The person sitting near the driver's seat had an iron weapon in his hand. This witness further stated that accused Lakhan Bhaina had a bent sickleshaped weapon in his hand. The person sitting in the driver's seat drove the vehicle across the canal, where there was some ground, from there he turned the vehicle and brought it towards Baradwar. Near Baradwar, there is a kutcha road near the mango tree which goes towards Khamhariya. He drove the vehicle in the same direction and stopped the near the river, there both the above mentioned persons got down from the vehicle, the motorcyclist was some distance away, at the same time they started bringing the vehicle from Baradwar towards Khamhariya road, then accused Lakhan Bhaina said that if you do not give him the keys, he will kill everyone with his weapon. Subsequently, he gave keys to accused Lakhan, who took out the money from the vehicle and kept the money in a sack, and thereafter, they fled away from there.

¶47

PW2- Prabhakar Chandra has also deposed in similar way that on the date when they had gone to Sakti for withdrawing the amount of salary of teachers and while returning from there, the appellant along with other looted the said amount.

¶48

Likewise PW3- Kumar Sinch Chandra deposed in his examination-inchief that on 02/02/1999, when they had come for taking the amount of salary of teachers at Sakti and after taking the said amount of salary, they had kept the said money in a trunk. Subsequently, while returning on the

¶49

¶50

CRA No.253 of 2016

¶51

way, there was some blast type noise and they thought that the Tyre got flat, but Prabhakar Chandra, PW1 had sustained injury and blood was oozing. When, they were standing, one person carrying weapon came from right side and seated on the driver seat. Two persons were on motorcycle. Subsequently, while driving the vehicle, they took it to Khamhariya road, where they took the money out from the trunk and kept in the sack and fled away from there.

¶52

PW4- Kartikram Kashyap has deposed that on 02/02/99 they came from Jaijaipur to State Bank of India, Sakti and Rs. 14,46,493/- was received from the bank in Prabhakar's tempo. Out of that Rs. 90,000/- was kept in a separate bag for the teachers of Raipura and the remaining Rs. 13,58,490/- was kept in a box. Rameshwar gave Rs. 89,493/- out of Rs. 90,000/- to Hemlal. Keeping the remaining money in the box, they left at 02:10 pm for Jaijaipur. When they reached furlongs ahead of Basti Baradwar, they heard a bang on the road, so they thought that the tyre of the jeep had burst. After that Prabhakar stopped the jeep, at that time the first criminal came and removed the driver and sat in the driver's seat. A knife was also seen in his hand. From the other side of the vehicle, another criminal entered into the jeep with an eight to ten inch weapon and sat where the money box was kept. They turned the jeep back and brought it towards Basti Baradwar and the first accused drove towards Chitapadaria and he stopped the jeep near Katia Nala. After that the first and second accused took out the money from the box by keeping it in a sack bag. The third accused was following the jeep on a red coloured

¶53

¶54

CRA No.253 of 2016

¶55

motorcycle. He parked his motorcycle at a distance of about 50-50 steps behind the jeep and came to the place where the taxi was stopped and fired another shot at the driver Prabhakar, due to which the driver was badly injured. After that all the miscreants fled away on the motorcycle with the money. After that Kumar Chandra went to the police station to report the incident.

¶56

Similarly, PW5- Fekulal Kashyap in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 02/02/1999, they left for Sakti for taking the salary of teachers and while they were returning on the way, some blast type noise from the side of driver came and Prabhakar sustained some injury. The vehicle got stopped and subsequently, one person carrying a sharp edged weapon seated on the driver seat and another person who was carrying weapon get seated near the trunk of money and third person was on motorcycle. They took the vehicle towards Chitapadaria and looted the money.

¶57

Bare perusal of the statements of these witnesses, it is apparent that there are corroboration in their statements and it is established from their statement that on the date of incident, the accused persons looted the money (which was being carrying for salary of teachers) and after keeping the said money in a sack, fled away from the spot.

¶58

The question emerges for consideration before this Court, whether the present appellant was involved in crime in question or not?.

¶59

Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 8 of the Bhartiya

¶60

¶61

CRA No.253 of 2016

¶62

Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) provides for the things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design. The same reads thus:-

¶63

17. “ Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design.- Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it.”

¶64

Bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that Section 10 has been deliberately enacted in order to make acts and statements of a co-conspirator admissible against the whole body of conspirator, because of the nature of crime.

¶65

In this regard, statement of PW9- Vikas Rajput has been brought on by the prosecution. He stated that he knows the appellant herein as he belongs from his village. This witness has admitted that he also knows accused Lakhan and Saundha. He deposed that while he was sitting at chowk, he saw the appellant along with other co-accused Lakhan and Saundha came on motorcycle and stopped near the house of accused Lakhan. They were carrying a sack. He went to the house of accused Lakhan, as they were friend, but the door was closed from inside. Subsequently, he, after climbing on the wall, peeped inside the house of accused Lakhan. This witness has stated that he saw that accused Lakhan was taking out the bundles of notes from the sack. Subsequently, this witness came from there and narrated the incident to his father that

¶66

¶67

CRA No.253 of 2016

¶68

accused Lakhan has kept lot of notes in his house and accused Komal and Sundha were also present there.

¶69

PW34- Umesh Sharma is a witness of memorandum and seizure. He deposed at para one of his statement that after the three-four days of the incident, he had gone to the spot of occurrence. He further deposed that from three places, the police has seized the looted money. He has categorically stated that from the house of the appellant, hefty looted money along with motorcycle was recovered, whereas from the other accused, only money was recovered. He later on deposed that in his presence, memorandum statement was recorded and seizure was done.

¶70

From perusal of the statement of PW9, it is crystal clear that the present appellant along with other co-accused persons was present while they were taking out the notes bundles from the sack, which they looted. Further, it is also clear from the statement of PW34 that notes were recovered in his presence from the house of the present appellant and he has supported the case of the prosecution. Even, father of the appellant namely Mohit Ram, who was one of the accused and acquitted in Sessions Trial No. 166/1999, has admitted the fact regarding seizure of money from the house of the appellant.

¶71

It is well settled propositions of law that if, prima-facie, evidence of existence of a conspiracy is given and accepted, the evidence of acts and statements made by anyone of the conspirators in furtherance of common object is admissible against all.

¶72

Thus, from the entire facts and circumstances, it is apparent that though

¶73

¶74

CRA No.253 of 2016

¶75

the appellant was not present on the spot while accused Lakhan along with other looted the money from the vehicle, he was the part of conspiracy and was seen by PW9 at the house of accused Lakhan when they were taking out the money from the sack and that money was also recovered from his house, therefore, in the light of Section 10 of the Evidence Act, the above acts categorically attributes involvement of the appellant in the conspiracy of crime.

¶76

For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has completely proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant and he has been rightly convicted by the trial Court, which do not warrant interference of this Court.

¶77

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender forthwith and/or be taken into custody for serving out the remaining sentence.

¶78

Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record of the case to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.

¶79

The appellant is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, if so advised, with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee

¶80

SD/-

¶81

(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶82

Rahul/Gowri

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09/02/2016 in Special Sessions Trial No. 218/2006 convicting the appellant under Sections 397 and 120-B of the IPC and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs. 5,000 under each head, with default stipulations.¶¶16
Court of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) · 09/02/2016
Prior proceeding
On 02/02/1999, Rs. 13,56,493/- (part of Rs. 14,46,493/- withdrawn from State Bank of India, Sakti for teachers' salaries) was looted at gunpoint near Katia Naka; the complainant reported the incident and Baradwar police station registered the crime and investigated.¶¶24
Prior proceeding
Separate trial of co-accused Lakhan, Mohit Ram Chandra, Chitranjan Chandra and Tosh Kumar Sahu in Sessions Trial No. 166/1999: except Lakhan Bhaina, the other three accused were acquitted.¶¶20
Prior proceeding
In Sessions Trial No. 420/1999, Narendra Kumar Mishra was acquitted; accused Soedha (Saundha) Bhaina remained absconding.¶¶20
Prior proceeding
The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti passed judgment on 12/05/2003 in Sessions Case No. 166/1999 (State vs. Lakhanlal and others); the charge sheet in that case had not included absconding accused Komal Singh Chandra, Saudha Bhaina and Narendra Mishra.¶¶30
Prior proceeding
The present appellant, absconding since the date of the incident, surrendered on 01/10/2004 and a separate trial was commenced against him.¶¶20
Prior proceeding
A separate supplementary challan was presented by Baradwar Police Station against accused Komal Singh Chandra after his surrender.¶¶30
Prior proceeding
The court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti committed/sent the case to the District and Sessions Court, Bilaspur on 07/03/2005 as it was triable by the Sessions Court.¶¶30
Prior proceeding
On 23/03/2005 the case was transferred from the District and Sessions Court, Bilaspur to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti for disposal.¶¶30
Prior proceeding
During the trial the appellant again absconded; a permanent arrest warrant was issued against him and the case was sent to the archives.¶¶30
Prior proceeding
In compliance of the permanent arrest warrant, the appellant was again arrested and produced on 18/06/2013 and the trial was restarted (sentence continues at ¶33).¶¶30
Prior proceeding
The appellant absconded again in the year 2014; a fresh permanent arrest warrant was issued on 18/02/2015 and the case was again archived.¶¶33
Prior proceeding
In compliance of the warrant, the appellant was again arrested and produced on 06/06/2015 and the trial in the case was started.¶¶33
Prior proceeding
The appellant was charged under Section 120(B), 395, 397 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act; he denied the charges and sought trial.¶¶34
Prior proceeding
Prosecution examined 60 witnesses; the appellant's statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein he pleaded innocence and false implication.¶¶35
Prior proceeding
By judgment dated 09/02/2016 the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant, leading to the present appeal.¶¶36

Komal Singh Chandra v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Komal Singh Chandra 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

Dr. Ramanand Yadu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mahesh Kumar Paswan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohammad Kalut Mansuli Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mahesh Kumar Thadani @ Junaid Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amit Gupta Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Santram @ Chhotu Nishad Vs State Of Chhattisgarh