Nagpal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 214 of 2008 • Nagpal S/o Late Ramadhar Mishra, aged about 27 years, R/o Opposite Anand Hotel, janjgir, P.S. Janjgir, District-JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : District Magistrate, JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant :

Mr. Animesh Verma, Advocate.

For Respondent/State :

Mr. Wasim Miyan, PL.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order On Board 16/09/2019 1.

The present revision arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.02.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, JanjgirChampa, in Cr. Appeal No. 49/2007 whereby, the learned appellate Court below has afÏrmed the conviction and sentence of the accused/applicant as awarded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir-Champa, vide its judgment dated 14.11.2007 in Criminal Case No. 1100/2007 for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 1 year & fine of Rs. 500/-, plus default stipulation.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that complainant Jai Prakash when on 20.03.2003 at about 1:00 PM., he was going to his house at village Hardi on Hero Honda, then he was asked for lift up to Seoni by two persons namely Nagpal and Montoo and when they reached Seoni bridge, both the accused persons

snatched the key and took away the bike, which was later on seized from outside the village after 10-12 days. Other accused Montoo was acquitted by the Trial Court and the present applicant who was declared absconding after arrest was convicted for the said offence.

3.

So as to hold the accused/applicant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses. Statement of the accused/applicant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.

4.

After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.11.2007, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has convicted and sentenced the accused/applicant for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 1 year & fine of Rs. 500/-, plus default stipulation. This order was appealed by the applicant and in the appeal, learned Appellate Court has afÏrmed the conviction and sentence of the applicant. Hence, the present revision.

5.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment.

6.

Counsel for the applicant submits that he is not pressing this revision as far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2003, and thereby more than 16 years have rolled by since then. The applicant has already remained in jail for more than four months, and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

7.

Learned counsel for the State has no objection to this proposition.

8.

Having gone through the material on record and the evidence of the witnesses Jay Prakash (PW-1), A. S. Gyani (PW4), Ramawatar Tiwari (PW-5), and Harprasad Pandey (PW-6), established the involvement of the accused/applicant in the crime in question stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by both the Courts below as regards conviction it is hereby maintained.

9.

As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that incident had taken place in the year 2003, and further that the applicant had already remained in jail for more than four months, therefore, his sentence is liable to be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

10.

In view of the above consideration, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the applicant, he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The applicant is on bail. His bail bond will stand discharged. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE H.L. Sahu