Chattisgarh High Court
Raju Khan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 February, 2023
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Revision No.252 of 2010
Kadar Khan, S/o Sher Khan, aged about 20 years, R/o Village Khatta, Police
Station Tumgaon, District Mahasamund (C.G.)
---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Mahasamund, Distt.
Mahasamund (C.G.)
---- Non-applicant
AND
Criminal Revision No.253 of 2010
Raju Khan, S/o Rasul Khan, aged about 23 years, R/o Village Khatta
Chowki, Patewa, Police Station Tumgaon, District Mahasamund (C.G.)
---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Mahasamund, Distt.
Mahasamund (C.G.)
---- Non-applicant
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Applicants: Mr. Shubham Tripathi, Advocate. For State/non-applicant: Mr. Afroz Khan, Panel Lawyer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 03/02/2023
1. Since common question of law and fact is involved in both the revisions, arising out of common judgment dated 13-5-2010 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Two applicants herein have been convicted by the trial Court for offences under Sections 365 read with Section 34, 323 read with Section 34 & 447 of the IPC and they are sentenced as under: - 2
Accused/applicant Kadar Khan Conviction Sentence Sec. 365 read with Sec. 34 RI for 1 year & fine of ₹ 200/-, in default, of the IPC additional simple imprisonment for 20 days Sec. 323 read with Section RI for 3 months & fine of ₹ 200/-, in 34 of the IPC default, additional simple imprisonment for 20 days Section 447 of the IPC RI for one month Accused/applicant Raju Khan Conviction Sentence Sec. 365 read with Sec. 34 RI for 1 year & fine of ₹ 200/-, in default, of the IPC additional simple imprisonment for 20 days The judgment of the trial Court has been confirmed by the appellate Court in appeal against which these revisions have been preferred.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is no evidence on record to convict the two applicants for the offences in question and conviction has been made on the basis of surmises and conjectures, as such, their conviction deserves to be set aside. In alternative, learned counsel submits that applicant Kadar Khan remained in jail for 108 days and applicant Raju Khan remained in jail for 109 days, therefore, they be sentenced to the period already undergone by them.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes both the revisions.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.
6. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on 3 record has clearly recorded a finding that the two applicants abducted Shiv Kumar & Govind Giri and wrongly confined them for the purpose of extracting money and also they caused simple hurt to them and thereby committed the offence which has been found proved by the appellate Court. The finding recorded by the two Courts below that the applicants abducted and wrongly confined Shiv Kumar & Govind Giri and also caused simple hurt to Govind Giri is a finding of fact based on the evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and I hereby affirm the conviction of the applicants.
7. Now, the question of sentence comes in. Applicant Kadar Khan has been sentenced to undergo RI for one year & fine of ₹ 200/- under Section 365 read with Section 34 of the IPC; RI for three months & fine of ₹ 200/- under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC; and RI for one month under Section 447 of the IPC. Applicant Raju Khan has been sentenced to undergo RI for one year & fine of ₹ 200/- under Section 365 read with Section 34 of the IPC. In my considered opinion, considering the date of offence i.e. 15-6-2005, more than 17 years had already elapsed and applicant Kadar Khan remained in jail for 108 days and applicant Raju Khan remained in jail for 109 days, therefore, ends of justice would serve if the period already undergone by them i.e. 108 days & 109 days is awarded to them. As such, maintaining the conviction, the applicants are hereby sentenced to the period already undergone by them. The criminal revisions are allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma