Daso Ram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Nehru Lal @ Ghasiya S/o Kanhaiya Lal Aged About 26 Years Now 33 Years, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o. Amapali, Police Station Lailunga, District Raigarh Now Jashpur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶14

--- Applicant

¶15

Versus

¶16

State of Chhattisgarh through The District Magistrate, Jashpur, District: Jashpur Chhattisgarh

¶17

--- Respondent(s)

¶18

For Applicant	: Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate
(In CRR No. 898 of 2016)
For Applicant	: Ms. Deblina Maity, Advocate on
	behalf of Mr. Akhtar Hussain,
	Advocate
(In CRR No. 872 of 2016)
For Respondent/State	: Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. G.A.

¶19

Page 2 of 4

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board

¶21

26.06.2025

¶22

1. These revision have been preferred by the applicants against the judgment dated 31.08.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2009 by the Additional Sessions Judge Kunkuri to the Court of Additional Judge, District: Jashpur (C.G.) whereby, the appeal of the applicants filed against the judgment dated 27.04.2009 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pathhalgaon, District: Jashpur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 362 of 2005 wherein, the applicants has been convicted under Section 394/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional RI for 4 months, is affirmed by the Appellate Court.

¶23

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.02.2002, at about 02:00 pm, the present applicants along with other persons committed robbery of Rs. 9,000/- cash, one wrist watch, clothes etc. from the complainant Chandrashekhar on the point of pistol. On report being lodged to the above effect, the offence under Section 394 of IPC was registered against the applicants.

¶24

3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under the aforesaid section was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pathhalgaon, District: Jashpur (C.G.). The applicants abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty.

¶25

4. Learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary

¶26

Page 3 of 4

¶27

evidence, convicted & sentenced them as mentioned in the Para No. 1. The said judgment was challenged by the applicants in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 31.08.2016, dismissed the appeal of applicants upholding the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, these revision.

¶28

5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants jointly submits that they does not want to challenge the conviction part of the applicants and confines their argument to the sentence part only, which is on higher side. They further submits that the applicant- Daso Ram has remained in jail for 1 year 8 months 5 days i.e. from 15.02.2002 to 20.09.2003 and 31.08.2016 to 23.09.2016 and applicant Nehru Lal @ Ghasiya has remained in jail for 1 year 6 months and 24 days i.e. from 22.04.2002 to 07.10.2003 and 31.08.2016 to 19.09.2016 and they are facing the lis since 2002, i.e. for more than 23 years and at the relevant time, they were young men, therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶29

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

¶30

7. Considering the statements of PW-1 Chandrashekhar (Complainant) supported by PW-2 Sukhdev and PW-6 Oskar 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 a correct finding of

¶31

Page 4 of 4

¶32

fact.

¶33

8. Further considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the fact that the applicants have undergone about 1 year 6 months, they are facing the lis since 2002 i.e. for more than 23 years, therefore, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicants, the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period of 1 year and 6 months which has already been undergone by them.

¶34

9. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicants under the aforementioned section is affirmed and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. The fine sentence is affirmed.

¶35

10. Since the applicants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their 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.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

( Radhakishan Agrawal ) JUDGE

¶38

Saurabh

Daso Ram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daso Ram 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

Jairam Uraon Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mukesh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Dauram Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Nimai Barai Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Nehru Lal @ Ghasiya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Panch Ram @ Bono Vs State Of Chhattisgarh