1 2025:CGHC:9013 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1139 of 2007 • Ravinandan Pando @ Gudda, S/o Bihari Pando, Aged about 24 years, Occupation-Cultivator, R/o Village-Khairi, Police Station Patna, District-Koriya (C.G.). .. Appellant versus • State of Chhattisgarh through : P.S. Patna, District-Koriya (C.G.). ..Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate. For State : Mr. Arvind Dubey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 20 /0 2 /202 5 1 Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 13.01.2025, Appellant-Ravinandan Pando @ Gudda along with his counsel is present today before this Court. His presence be marked. 2 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.12.2007 passed by the learned Session Judge, District-Koriya (Baikunthpur) C.G. in Session Case No. 21/2006, whereby the learned Session Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.02.22 14:53:38 +0530 2 Conviction Sentence U/s 148 of IPC. R.I. for 01 year. 3 The case of the prosecution is that on 19.07.2005, the Officer-In-Charge of the Police Station received information from an informant that some persons were gathering in village Jamjhariya, Mahurat to plan dacoity. Thereafter information was recorded in the Rojnamcha Sanha and three teams were formed with additional forces. The teams arrived at the spot where the accused were found drinking under a banyan tree near the school in Jamjhariya village, planning to head towards Katakona Magazin and arrested the present appellant along with other co-accused persons. Subsequently, an offence was registered against the present appellant and the co-accused persons under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC. 4 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 07 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents. The statement of the appellant 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. 5 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.12.2007, learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant and other co- accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC. However, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence as mentioned in para-2 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 6 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing the appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the 3 sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2005, and thereby more than 19 years have rolled by since then. At present, the appellant is aged about 43 years and he has already remained in jail for about 65 days, and other co-accused persons have already undergone by learned trial Court. 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 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant. 8 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment. 9 Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of N.K. Tripathi (PW-2), Gopal Singh Dhruv (PW-5), Ramdayal Bhagat (PW-6) and Salim Tigga (PW-07), establish the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 148 of IPC. 10 As regards the sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place on 19.07.2005 about more than 19 years ago, at present he is aged about 43 years and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the other co-accused persons have already undergone by the trial Court and the present appellant has already remained in jail for about 65 days, this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 4 11 In view of the above consideration, I do not feel it appropriate to send back the appellant to jail. Hence, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him i.e., 65 days instead of rigorous imprisonment for 01 year for the offence punishable under Section 148 of IPC. 12 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 13 Appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender in this case. His bail bonds shall continue for a further period of 6 months as per requirement of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 14 Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE H.L. Sahu