1 2025:CGHC:19354 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 471 of 2007 1 - Jittey Panjabi @Harjeet Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Contractor Colony, P.S.-Supela, District-Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Badri Narayan @ Baba Gopi Ram Aged About 25 Years R/o Village- Siddarth Nagar, P.S.-Supela, District-Durg (C.G.) Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through PS Supela, District Durg (C.G.) Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Rahul Ambast, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devesh Kela, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 29/04/2025 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.05.2007 passed by the learned 5th Additional Session Judge, Durg in Session Trial No.172/2007, whereby the appellant No.1 has been convicted under Section 397 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA 2 years, whereas the appellant No.2 has been convicted under Section 411 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.01.2006, the complainant Mayank Mishra was going to Vaishali Nager in his Yamaha Motar Cycle, at about 2 pm, the accused Jittey @ Harjeet singh showed him the Knife with threatening and snatched his Nokia Mobile Set model No.6610 and Rs.300/-, thereafter the complainant lodged F.I.R. at P.S. Supela against the appellant No.1. On the memorandum of the appellant Jittey @ Harjeet Singh, Police seized the Mobile set from the possession of the accused Badrinarayan Yadav. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the appellants before the Magistrate concerned. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. The learned Trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly and did not consider omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. There is no eye witness in the incident and the FIR was also lodged after about 6 hours of the incident, but the learned Trial Court has ignored the above said aspects of the matter, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 3 Alternatively, He submits that the incident took place in the year 2006, during pendency of the appeal the appellant No.1 died, whereas the appellant No.2 is currently aged about 43 years and he remained in jail for 6 days and has never misused the liberty granted by this Court, therefore, he may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant, as such no interference is called for. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses and Section 313 CrPC statements of the accused were also recorded. The learned Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 7. The complainant Mayank Mishra (PW-1) stated that on 10.01.2006 at noon when he was going to Vaishali Nagar from his house on a motorcycle and reached near Mourya Talkies, 4 then the appellant No.1 came there and threatened him by showing knife and snatched his mobile and Rs.300/-. He also stated that the appellant No.1 also tried to snatch his motorcycle, but due to people coming on spot, he ran away. PW-2 J. L. Sahu, PW-3 B. C. Meshra, PW-4 Ravi Kumar, PW-6 Anita Sagar and PW-7 Prakash Soni have supported the case of the prosecution. Thus, the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and rightly convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offence. 8. The finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is based on the proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, as such this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, therefore, the conviction of the appellant No.1 under Section 397 of IPC and the appellant No.2 under Section 411 of IPC is hereby affirmed. 9. As regards sentence, it is clear that the incident took place in the year 2006, during pendency of the appeal the appellant No.1 died, whereas the appellant No.2 is currently aged about 43 years and he remained in jail for 6 days and has never misused the liberty granted by this Court, therefore, ends of justice would be served if the appellant No.2 Badri Narayan is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. Accordingly, the appellant No.2 5 is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 10. The appeal is partly allowed. 11. The appellant No.2 is reported to be on bail. 12. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant No.2 is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- before the court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 13. The Trial Court’s record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala