Jageshwar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 54 of 2008 Jageshwar S/o. Sadhram Satnami, Aged about 25 years, R/o. Village odaan, Thana, Palari, District Raipur (C.G.)

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh through the District Magistrate Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For the Applicant : Mr. Deepak Jain, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Raghvendra Verma, PL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vimla Singh Kapoor Order on Board 05.04.2019 1.

On 22.08.2000 FIR (Ex.P-3) was lodged in Police Station Palari, by Surendra Kumar Soni (PW-1), Assistant Engineer, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, Boraidih, alleging that 1.8 K.M. electricity wire of 11 K.V. electricity was theft by unknown person. It was further alleged that prior to this incident, broad line of 2.3 KM electricity wire was also made theft by some unknown persons. On suspicion, the applicant was arrested and on the memorandum statement of the applicant stolen wire was seized from him. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicant under Section 379 IPC and charge sheet was framed accordingly.

2.

By the judgment dated 28.02.2005 learned trial Court convicted the accused/applicant under Section 379 IPC and imposed the sentence of RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-. In appeal, the conviction recorded by the trial Court has been affirmed. Hence, this revision.

3.

Counsel for the applicant submits that the Courts below have committed an error in convicting and sentencing the accused/applicant as mentioned above though the evidence led by the prosecution was lacking and therefore, the same may be set aside. He further submits that the seizure witnesses have not fully supported the case of the prosecution case, hence benefit of doubt should have given in favour of the accused. 4.

State counsel, however, supports the judgment impugned. 5.

Having heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the evidence of PW-1, who proved the FIR (Ex.P-3) and his written application vide ExP-1. His evidence is also makes it clear that the official of the CSEB have clearly owned the said wire to be their own. Thus, the statement of all these witnesses are quite consistent and therefore there is no reason to disbelieve or discard the same. In this view of the matter, both the Courts below appear to have been fully justified in holding the accused/applicant guilty under Section 379 IPC and therefore, no infirmity or illegality is visible in the judgment under assail.

6.

However, looking to the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 2000 and thereby more than 18 years have passed by, and further that the accused/applicant has already remained inside for more than 106 days, this Court thinks it proper to reduce the sentence imposed on him to the period already undergone, so that his already settled family life is not landed to crises. Order accordingly.

7.

Revision allowed in part.

Sd/- (Vimla Singh Kapoor) JUDGE Santosh