S. Shakti Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.09.26 11:21:07 +0530

¶2

2025:CGHC:47899

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 924 of 2017

¶5

1 - M. Murgan S/o Shri Manimayam, Aged About 65 Years R/o Door No.02/32 Multai Nagar Kallikudinath, Thana Solan Nagar, District Trichi Tamilnadu, Tamil Nadu

¶6

2 - S.Jagnathan @ Jagan S/o Sarwanan, Aged About 35 Years R/o Door No. 49 Mill Colony Ramjinagar, Thana Ramjinagar, District Trichi Tamilnadu, Tamil Nadu

¶7

3 - S. Prabhakaran S/o Sarwanan, Aged About 35 Years R/o Door No. 38 Mill Colony Ramjinagar, Thana Ramjinagar, District Trichi Tamilnadu, Tamil Nadu

¶8

4 - Gyanvel S/o Muththu, Aged About 41 Years R/o Mallipatti Kullikutti Thana Solannagar, District Trichi Tamilnadu, Tamil Nadu

¶9

5 - S.Lognathan S/o Selbam, Aged About 40 Years R/o New Kotar Gandhinagar, Thana Solannagar, District Trichi Tamilnadu, Tamil Nadu

¶10

6 - P.Kartik S/o Late Shri Prabhu, Aged About 30 Years R/o Mallipatti Kullikutti Thana Solannagar, District Trichi Tamilnadu, Tamil Nadu

¶11

7 - M.Vijay Kumar S/o Mohan, Aged About 52 Years R/o Door No.1/77 Mallipatti Kullikutti Thana Solannagar, District Trichi Tamilnadu, Tamil Nadu

¶12

8 - P.Santosh S/o Shri Prabhu, Aged About 31 Years R/o Door No. 1/52, Mallipatti Kullikutti Thana Solannagar, District Trichi Tamilnadu, Tamil Nadu

¶13

9 - M.Krishnan S/o Shri Murgan, Aged About 31 Years R/o Door No. 3/06 K.Kallugudi, Thana Solannagar Banna Koeil, District Trichi Tamilnadu, Tamil Nadu

¶14

10 - A.Dharmendra S/o Shri R.Murgan, Aged About 40 Years R/o Door No.03/112 Ramjinagar Gandhinagar Street, Thana Ramjinagar, District Trichi Tamilnadu, Tamil Nadu

¶15

--- Applicant(s)

¶16

versus

¶17

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s)

¶18

Crr 924 of 2017 and connected matters

¶19

2

¶20

CRR No. 883 of 2017

¶21

1 - S. Shakti W/o Salaiya, Aged About 55 Years R/o Door No. 03/135, Ramji Nagar, Gandhi Nahar Street, Police Station Ramji Nagar, District Trichi, Tamilnadu., Tamil Nadu

¶22

2 - Hariharan S/o Gandhi, Aged About 23 Years R/o House No. 01/131, Ramji Nagar, Police Station Ramji Nagar, District Trichi, Tamilnadu., Tamil Nadu

¶23

---Applicant(s)

¶24

Versus

¶25

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s)

¶26

--- Respondent(s)

¶27

CRR No. 918 of 2017

¶28

1 - V. Kumar S/o S/o Velu Swami Aged About 47 Years R/o Door No. 13/144, U-Kator Gandhi Nagar, P.S. Solan Nagar, District Trichi Tamilnadu , Tamil Nadu

¶29

2 - S. Tamil S/o K. Silvan Aged About 40 Years R/o Door No. 3/148, New Kator Soma Rasam, Pettai, Pungnupur, P.S. Pungnupur, District Trichi Tamilnadu , Tamil Nadu

¶30

3 - Wel Murgan S/o Bala Subramanayam Aged About 35 Years R/o Hari Bhaskal Colony Ke Kallukudi Stirangan Kallukudi District Trichi Tamilnadu , Tamil Nadu

¶31

4 - S. Shashi S/o Selvaraj Aged About 31 Years R/o Somarsam Pete Pungnpur Gandhi Nagar, P.S. Gandhi Nagar, District Trichi Tamilnadu , Tamil Nadu

¶32

---Applicants

¶33

Versus

¶34

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh --- Respondent

¶35

(Cause title is taken from the CIS)

¶36

------------------------------------------- For Applicants	----------------------------------------------------------------------- : Shri Rajendra Patel, and Shri Tejasvi Dev, Advocates
For Respondent/State -------------------------------------------	: Shri Vivek Sharma, PL -----------------------------------------------------------------------

¶37

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

¶38

Order on Board

¶39

Crr 924 of 2017 and connected matters

¶40

3

¶41

17.09.2025

¶42

These three petitions are arising out of the same Crime Number-77 of 2016, and common judgment passed by the learned trial Court, as well as by the learned appellate Court, therefore, they are being heard and decided together.

¶43

Applicants have challenged the judgment dated 08.09.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Dhamtari, in CRA- 51 of 2017, which was arising out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.06.2017, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari in Criminal Case No.437 of 2016, whereby the applicants/accused persons have been convicted and sentenced as given below:

¶44

CRR No.	Conviction	Sentence with stipulation	default
924 of 2017,	u/s 454 of the IPC	RI for 3 years, and Rs.1,000/-	fine of
883 of 2017,	u/s 380 of the IPC	Same as above
AND 918 of 2017	u/s 120-B of the IPC	Same as above (All the sentences concurrently)	to run

¶45

Brief facts of the case are that on 14.03.2016, the applicants/accused persons committed theft of cash of Rs.10 lakhs from the Bank of Baroda, Branch Dhamtari, by hatching conspiracy with each other. Out of total 16 accused persons in the case, 8 accused persons entered into the bank, and other were guarding outside of the Bank, and committed theft of cash of Rs.10 lakhs. The Cashier of the Bank Dev Lal

¶46

Crr 924 of 2017 and connected matters

¶47

4

¶48

Yadav, PW10, lodged report to the Police, on which FIR Ex.P5 was registered against unknown accused persons for the offence under Section 380 of the IPC. During the investigation, on the the basis of CCTV footage at various places, accused persons were traced out by the Police, and they have been arrested. Accused persons were put to Test Identification Parade (TIP), and were duly identified by the witnesses. An amount of Rs.70,000/- each has been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P15 to Ex.P30 respectively, from possession of the accused applicants- S Murugan, Gyanvel, S Jagnathan @ Jagan, Hariharan, S Prabhakaran, S Lognathan, P Kartik, V Kumar, P Santosh, M Vijay Kumar, S Tamil, M Krishnan, Wel Murugan, A Dharmendra, and S Sashi, whereas, from the applicant-S Sakti, Rs,4,50,000/- has been seized.

¶49

After due process of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari for the offence under Section 454, 380, and 120B of the IPC.

¶50

Learned trial Court framed charge against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 454, 380, 120B of the IPC, and they denied charge appearing against them, and claimed trial.

¶51

In order to prove the charge against the accused persons, prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses. Statements of the accused persons have also been recorded, in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence, and have submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence.

¶52

Crr 924 of 2017 and connected matters

¶53

5

¶54

After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, learned trial Court has convicted the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 454, 380 and 120B of the IPC and sentenced them as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment.

¶55

Conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused persons were challenged by them by filing CRA-51 of 2017 before the learned Additional Session Judge, FTC Dhamtari, and after hearing the parties, learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the accused persons, vide its judgment dated 08.09.2017, and upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court. Hence this Revision.

¶56

Learned counsel appearing for the respective applicants would jointly submit that they are not pressing the revision petitions so far as they relate to conviction part of the impugned judgment, and restricted their argument to the quantum of sentence only. They submit that the incident took place in the year 2016, and the first offense of each of the applicant. The applicants have already suffered about one year, and six months of their sentence. At the time of incident, applicants were of different age groups, and now, they are engaged in their family life, having innumerable responsibilities. The entire amount of theft has been seized /recovered by the Police. Therefore, no purpose would be served by sending the applicants to jail again, after lapse of about 9 years. Hence, it is prayed that sentence awarded to the applicants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶57

Crr 924 of 2017 and connected matters

¶58

6

¶59

Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, and further submitted that the applicants have committed theft of huge public amount from the bank, and it is not a simple case of theft, but the applicants conspired together, and in execution of their plan, they committed the offense. Looking to gravity of the offence, learned trial Court has already showed its leniency towards the applicants, hence, they are not entitled for further leniency. Hence, these revision petitions are liable to be dismissed.

¶60

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court.

¶61

Though learned counsel for the applicants have not challenged the conviction part of the applicants, and restricted their submissions only with regard to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this court deems it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment of the trial court as well as the appellate court. This court has meticulously examined the impugned judgment and evidence on record.

¶62

Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that learned trial court as well as the appellate court had thoroughly examined the evidence on record and concluded that prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt against the applicants. The testimony of the complainant-Devlal Yadav, PW10 stands corroborated by the testimony of PW2- Powar, who was then the Manager of the Bank, and also Dushyant Kumar PW13 who was the witness of TIP parade. The learned

¶63

Crr 924 of 2017 and connected matters

¶64

7

¶65

courts below have also relied upon the CCTV footage (Article 20), which has been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P3, and also the report of call details Ex.P53 & 54 and Panchnama Ex.P56. Learned courts below have also relied upon the evidence of Ramachandra Mourya PW-19, who is a technician at India Private Limited and has provided CCTV footage.

¶66

All these evidences have been corroborated by the evidence of the Investigating officer of the case, who proved all the process of investigation, and the defense could not extract any material in their evidence to say that their evidence could be disbelieved. Thus, it is clear that the learned trial court as well as the appellate court, after due appreciation of the evidence on record, came to conclusion that the applicants have committed offence under Sections 454, 380 and 120 B of the IPC. Hence the finding of conviction recorded by the trail court as well as by the appellate court does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, and therefore, it is hereby affirmed.

¶67

As regards the submission of learned counsel for the applicants on reducing the sentence period already undergone by them is concerned, considering the fact that incident took place in the year 2016, the applicants are facing rigorous trial for the last more than 9 years, and they have already served about 1 year 6 months of the jail sentence. Age of the applicants at the time of incident and that they are engaged in

¶68

Crr 924 of 2017 and connected matters

¶69

8

¶70

their family life with innumerable family responsibilities, it would deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence already undergone by the applicants.

¶71

So far as the sentence part is concerned, Hon’ble Supreme court in the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 3 SCC 287, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under:

¶72

“9. Western jurisdiction and 'sociologists, from their own angle have struck a like note. Sir Samual Romilly, critical of the brutal penalties in the then Britain, said in 1817 : "The laws of England are written in blood". Alfieri has suggested : 'society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it. George Micodotis, Director of Criminological Research Centre, Athens, Greece, maintains that 'Crime is the result of the lack of the right kind of education.' It is thus plain that crime is a pathological aberration, that the criminal can ordinarily be redeemed, that the State has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub-culture that leads to anti-social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by reculturisation. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology is the individual, and goal is salvaging him for society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today views sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of social defense. We, therefore consider a therapeutic, rather than an in 'terrorem' outlook, should prevail in our criminal courts, since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. In the words of George Bernard Shaw : 'If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him,

¶73

Crr 924 of 2017 and connected matters

¶74

9

¶75

you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries'. We may permit ourselves the liberty to quote from Judge Sir Jeoffrey Streatfield : 'If you are going to have anything to do with the criminal courts, you should see for yourself the conditions under which prisoners serve their sentences.”

¶76

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, facts and circumstances of the present case, and further considering the law laid down in Giasuddin (supra) case, ends of justice would meet if the sentence of the applicants could be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶77

Conviction of the applicants under Sections 454, 380 and 120B is hereby affirmed and the sentence imposed upon them under the offences aforesaid is hereby reduced for the period already undergone by them.

¶78

In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part.

¶79

Applicants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds are continued for further period of six months as provided under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶80

Record of the trial court be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned along with copy of this order for compliance and necessary action.

¶81

Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE

¶82

padma

S. Shakti v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Shakti 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Kishor @ Ballu Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rishi Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sushil Kumar Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mathura Gir Vs State of Chhattisgarh

V. Kumar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rakesh Sonkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh