1 2025:CGHC:24493 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 512 of 2006 1 - Qayum Ansari, S/o Mahboob Ansari, Aged About 25 years, Occupation- Driver, R/o Village Ajdha, P.S. Asta, District- Jashpur, C.G. ... Appellant versus 1 – The State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. Sanna, District- Jashpur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Tarun Dansena, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, P.L. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 16.06.2025 1. The appellant in this appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.04.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 143/2005 whereby the appellant along with other co- accused persons stands convicted and sentenced as under:- 2 Conviction Sentence U/s. 342 of IPC S.I. for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine amount, further S.I. for 2 months U/s. 395 of IPC R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, further R.I. for 5 months U/s. 506-B/34 of IPC R.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, further R.I. for 1 month U/s. 25/27 of Arms Act R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, further R.I. for 1 month 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant- Fulsai Kujur lodged the report at Police Station- Sanna, Jaspur (C.G.) against the appellant and other co-accused persons alleging that on 22.07.2005, at about 7:30 to 8:00 p.m., the appellant along with other co-accused persons armed with deadly weapons entered the premises of church convent situated at Village- Ekamba, P.S. Sanna (Jashpur), restrained the complainant- Ful Sai and threatened him in furtherance of their common intention and committed dacoity of cash of Rs.13,000/- from him. They also committed dacoity of Rs. 8,400/- from the nuns (sisters), grocery goods from one Bhedo Yadav and Rs. 16,000/- from one Mukti Prakash. On the basis of said complaint, FIR was registered against the appellant and other co-accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 342, 395, 506-B/34 of IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act. After completion of usual investigation, chargesheet was filed before the learned trial Court under Sections 342, 395, 506-B/34 of IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act against the appellant and other other 3 co-accused persons followed by framing of charges accordingly, to which appellant and other co-accused persons abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellant and other co-accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In their defence, they did not adduce any evidence. 4. Learned trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted one co-accused person namely Ravishankar Nagesiya, convicted the appellant and other co-accused persons and sentenced them as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of this case. The learned trial Court ought to have considered that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. The learned trial Court failed to consider that there is hardly any reliable evidence to warrant the conviction of the appellant under the aforementioned sections of the IPC and the Arms Act. The learned trial Court ought to have considered that none of the witnesses have identified the accused persons as they have covered their faces with cloths and it was a dark night. The test identification parade done by the prosecution is of no meaning because it has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubts. The learned trial Court failed to consider 4 that no looted article has been seized from the possession of the appellant. The learned trial Court ought to have considered this fact that from the statements of Ful Sai (PW-1) and Filgor Lakra (PW-2), nothing incriminating was found against the present appellant. The learned trial Court failed to consider that Anita Tirkey (P.W.-4) who has stated about the present appellant, specifically admitted that due to pressure of the police, she identified the present appellant and she has not identified the present appellant during the test identification parade. The whole case is based upon surmises and conjectures in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The sentence awarded to the appellant is too harsh looking to the present facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, he submits that if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the appellant under the aforesaid section as imposed by the trial Court is just and proper, considering the fact that the appellant has remained in jail for about 3 years; this appeal is pending since 2006; appellant is middle aged person, the appellant may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court having appreciated the overall oral and documentary evidence has rightly recorded a finding of guilt against the appellant which needs no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present appeal being sans merits is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 5 8. Upon perusal of the record, it is clear that the learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 342, 395, 506B r/w 34 of IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act against the appellant and other co-accused persons. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court acquitted one co-accused namely Ravishankar Nagesiya of the charge under Sections 342, 395, 506-B/34 of IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act and convicted the appellant and other co-accused persons for the said offence. 9. Complainant- Ful Sai (P.W.-1), Filgor Lakra (P.W.-2), Manoram @ Manoj (P.W.-3), Anita Tirkey (P.W.-4) Jensi (P.W.-5), Mukti Prakash (P.W.-6) and R.R. Toppo (P.W.-7) stated against the appellant and other co-accused persons. The complainant- Ful Sai and other eye- witnesses also identified the appellant. The learned trial Court minutely appreciated the statements of all witnesses and appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and thereby convicted the appellant as mentioned above. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence of witnesses, therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 342, 395, 506-B/34 of IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act is affirmed. 10. As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that incident took place in the year 2005 and nearly 20 years have rolled by since then; appellant was aged about 25 years at the time of the incident and as of now he is a middle aged person; he remained in jail for more than 3 years, the appellant is on bail since long and did not misuse the liberty so granted, hence taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served while maintaining the sentence of the appellant 6 under Sections 342, 506-B/34 of IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act awarded by the learned trial Court, his sentence under Section 395 of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Keeping in view the fine imposed upon him with default sentence by the trial Court thereunder shall remain intact. 11.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of the appellant under Sections 342, 506-B/34 of IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act and the sentence imposed thereunder by the trial Court are hereby maintained, however while maintaining his conviction under Section 395 of IPC, the sentence imposed thereunder by the trial Court is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. The fine amount imposed under Section 395 of IPC with default sentence by the trial Court shall remain intact. 12. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 13. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV