Chattisgarh High Court
Uttra Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 December, 2016
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Revision No. 69 of 2004
Judgment reserved on: 24.11.2016
Judgment delivered on: 09.12.2016
Uttra Kumar, S/o Ram Lal Kashyap, Aged about 25 years, R/o Village Toori,
Police Chowki Navagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through the District Magistrate, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
---- Non-applicant
For Applicant :- Shri V.K. Pandey, Advocate.
For Respondent/State :- Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Govt. Advocate.
SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Shukla C A V Order
1. Challenge in this revision is to the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 31-01-2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, Sessions Division Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 171/2003 has affirmed the judgement of conviction and order of sentence awarded by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Janjgir in Criminal Case No.648/2000 on 10-09-2003 whereby & whereunder learned trial judge after holding the accused/applicant guilty of offence, convicted under Sections 457 & 511 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months & to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months, on each count.
2. The impugned judgement is challenged on the ground that without any clinching evidence, learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the applicant in the aforesaid manner and thereby committed illegality. 2
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that according to the applicant, charge under Section 457 and 511 of the IPC was framed against him before the trial Court wherein it is stated that on 13-09-2000 at night in village Toori, 'Nach' has been organized and complainant - Ramesh Kumar also went to watch the programme. His wife and mother were present in his house. In the night, the accused/appellant entered into the house of the complainant and one box, which was kept in almirah was brought out. At the same time, complainant Ramesh Kumar and other persons reached the house. On seeing them, the accused/applicant ran away from the spot leaving the box but he was caught hold by them on the spot. After lodging report against the applicant, the matter was investigated. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Janjgir.
4. The prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Cr.P.C.') wherein he denied the charges against him in the prosecution case and pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question.
5. After hearing both the parties, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the applicant as aforementioned against which the applicant preferred an appeal. The appellate Court while affirming the conviction, dismissed the appeal, as aforementioned.
6. Being aggrieved by the judgements of both the Courts below, the instant revision has been preferred.
3
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgement impugned and records of the Courts below.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecution against the applicant. There are full of omissions and contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. He further argued that no independent witness was examined, therefore, the applicant deserves to be acquitted.
9. Per contra, Shri Sanjeev Pandey, Govt. Advocate appearing for the State/respondent, supporting the impugned judgement, submitted that the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge do not warrant any interference by this Court.
10. The question for consideration arises before this Court is whether the conviction and sentence of the applicant suffers from illegality and perversity or not?
11. The statements of complainant-Ramesh Kumar (PW-1), Murarilal (PW-2), Vedkumar Kashyap (PW-3), Dinanath (PW-4), Banarsi Lal (PW-5), Ramsurat Choubey (PW-6), retired Head Constable, Dwarika Prasad (PW-7), S.S. Baghel, ASI (PW-8) were recorded in the court below.
12. Complainant-Ramesh Kumar (PW-1) has stated that on the date of incident at 10.00-10.30 P.M. when he reached his home after watching nacha which was organised in the village, he heard that some body entered into his house. He narrated about the fact to Murarilal (PW-2). The complainant along with Murarilal reached the house and went towards Kola and saw that the accused/applicant jumped the wall of Dinanath and 4 fled away. After hearing the alarm, Dinanath got up and caught hold the accused - applicant Uttrakumar. The statement of (PW-1) Ramesh Kumar was corroborated by the statement of (PW-2) Murarilal. Dinanath (PW-4) has deposed in his evidence that at 10.00 to 11.00 P.M., he got up after hearing the noise and saw that accused-applicant was coming towards his house and is being chased by Murari and others and they caught hold the accused-applicant. In the cross-examination, Dinanath (PW-4) has stated that he got up after hearing the noise of Murari (PW-2) and saw that the applicant fled away. Banarsilal (PW-5) in his evidence has stated that on questioning the accused/applicant, he told that he was called by Raju's wife.
13. Ramesh Kumar (PW-1) has stated in para 5 of his evidence that at the time of incident, his wife and his mother were sleeping in the same room. Likewise, Banarsilal (PW-5) has stated in his cross-examination that when he reached the spot, the accused-applicant was inside the house. In view of the above statements of the witnesses, it is clear that the applicant has committed the act of lurking house trespass.
14. FIR (Ex. P-1) was lodged by Ramesh Kumar (PW-1). According to FIR, the accused-applicant entered into house of the complainant and took out two boxes from almirah. The same has been supported by the statements of Murari (PW-2) and Vedkumar (PW-3). Seizure was made by S.S. Baghel, ASI before Ramesh Kumar (PW-1) vide Ex.P-3. Thus, it is established that the accused-applicant has committed the offence of theft. 5
15. So far as the non-examination of independent witnesses is concerned, it is obvious to examine the witnesses, who were present at the time of incident.
16. Thus, from the evidence, it is clear that both the Courts below have found guilty of the accused/applicant for the offence of theft under Section 457 & 511 of the IPC, I do not find any illegality, irregularity in the impugned judgements of the Courts below. Accordingly, the criminal revision is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
17. The applicant is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled. He shall surrender immediately before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Janjgir to serve the remaining period of sentence imposed upon him.
Sd/-
(Anil Kumar Shukla) Judge Kvr