Gopi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Revision No . 299 of 2004 Order reserved on : 20.01.2017 Order passed on : 01.02.2017 • Gopi, s/o Rameshvar Satnami, aged about 40 years, R/o village Parasadih, PS Bilaigarh, district Raipur ---- Applicant

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh through PS Bilaigarh, District- Raipur (CG) ---- Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Applicant :

Shri Bharat Rajput, Advocate.

For Respondent/State :

Shri Suryakant Mishra, PL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Shukla CAV Order 1) This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 14.05.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 314 of 2003 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar by which the judgment dated 23.10.2003 passed in Criminal Case No.512 of 1993 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda Bazar convicting the applicant for offence punishable under Section 379 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one month, has been affirmed. The applicant has already paid the fine amount and receipt of the same has been kept on the record.

2) Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant- Gangaram purchased two buffaloes. On 13.06.1993 in the morning, he left the cattle

for grazing. When the cattle did not return home in the evening, he searched for the same, but could not find the cattle. He lodged FIR vide Ex.P/1. After two days, i.e. on 15.06.1993 PS Dabara received information that applicant- Gopi was going to sell two theft buffaloes in the cattle market on that day. On receiving this information, Police went to the cattle market and took possession of the said buffaloes on suspicion vide Ex.P/4 and registered Rojnamchasanha No.488 vide Ex.P/5. When Complainant- Gangaram came to know that his lost buffaloes were found and they were with the Police, he went there, identified the cattle and submitted receipt of purchase of the bufalloes (Ex.P/2) for supurdnama.

After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the applicant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda Bazar. Criminal Case No.512 of 1993 was registered against the applicant and by the judgment dated 23.10.2003 he was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above in the first paragraph of this order. Being aggrieved by this judgment, the applicant preferred Criminal Appeal- 314 of 2003 before the Court of Session at Baloda Bazar in which the First Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar by judgment dated 14.05.2004, dismissed the criminal appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, against which this revision has been preferred by the applicant.

3) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment impugned, statements of the witnesses and other documents relevant to the present case.

4) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he confines his argument to the sentence part only and does not challenge the conviction

imposed upon the applicant. Addressing the sentence part awarded to the applicant, learned counsel submits that on the date of the incident, the applicant was aged about 40 years and now he is 64 years old. Out of the jail sentence of four months RI awarded to him, he has already undergone 26 days i.e nearly one month and deposited fine amount of Rs.500/- imposed upon him. There is no criminal antecedent against the applicant. The incident is of the year 1993 and already 24 years have passed. Therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, learned counsel prays to reduce the sentence of the applicant imposed upon him to the period already undergone by him. 5) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgment though not disputed the above facts.

6) It is not in dispute that the applicant is now 64 years old; there is no criminal antecedent against him and the present offence is his first one, that too is a petty issue, for which he faced trial, appeal & the present revision for the past 24 years. He remained in custody for nearly one month and the total sentence awarded to him is four months. 7) Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, also considering that the present applicant is 64 years old, his custody period as well as the period passed in trial, appeal and revision, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the jail sentence awarded to the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. It would not be in the interest of justice to send him back to Jail after a long gap of 24 years.

8) Accordingly, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the revision filed by the applicant is hereby partly allowed. The conviction of the

applicant under Section 379 of the IPC is hereby maintained. However, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 9) It is reported that the applicant is on bail. His bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and shall remain operative for a further period of six months in view of the provisions contained under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.

Sd/- Sd/- (Anil Kumar Shukla) JUDGE padma