1 Reserved on 07.03.2025 Pronouncement on 07.05.2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1050 of 2003 Sanju S/o. Bisen Lal aged about 22 years, Pouni. P.S. Malajkhand, District Balagahat, CG ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, P.S. Salhebara, District Rajnandgaon, CG ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, PL Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput C A V Judgment This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.PC has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.07.2003 passed in Sessions Trial No. 02/2003 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kheragarh, District Rajnandgaon, CG. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 394 and 450 IPC and sentenced to undergo three years RI on both and the both the sentence to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 15.04.2002 at about 3 am the complainant Kaluram Mrar & Sukhiya Bai were sleeping in there house. At that time when somebody called from out side, Sukhiya Bai open the door, and the two, out of three person who were standing the door, came inside the bedroom and then one person threatened him and asked for Rs. 5000/- and the second person put and gun like arm on his chest, and Kaluram was 2 beaten by the second person. Kaluram due to fear gave a Rs. 50/- to the person who had threatened him and when Sukhiya Bai shouted both the person run away. The near by people arrive there. The persons who was caught told his name as Sanju gada and other two person name as Jokar & Chain Lal. In the morning at about 9:30 am complainant gave all the information in Sathebara police station and the FIR was lodged. During investigation spot map was prepared, an old cycle tire, one torch, a old box and Rs. 50/- note was seized from the Sanju. Kaluram and Sanju were medically examined. Statement of the witnesses were taken. After investigation the charge-sheet was filed against the accused appellant. Co- accused Sanju S/o. Bisen Lal and the appellant put to trial. 3. The appellant was charged for an offence punishable under Sections 394 alternatively 394/34 and 450 IPC denied the charges claimed to be trial. 4. The prosecution examined 06 witnesses to prove its case. Statement of the accused- appellant under Section 313 Cr.PC was recorded in which he abjured his guilt and claimed trial. 5. Learned trial Court having heard the parties and seen the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant and the other co-accused Sanju as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding of the learned trial with regard to conviction of the appellant is bad in law. The learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective while convicting and sentencing the appellant. He submits that no cogent and prudent evidence available against the appellant there are several contradictions and omissions in the same therefore, conviction of the appellant is bad in law. Therefore, appeal deserve to be allowed and the appellant may be acquitted from all the charges. 7. On the other hand, State counsel supports the judgment impugned as a whole and submits that the findings of the trial Court being strictly in accordance with law do not need any view other than the one already taken by the trial Court. 8. Heard counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record minutely. 9. The learned trial Court on the basis of statement of Dr. G.S. Thakur (PW-5) came to 3 the conclusion that the complainant Kaluram (PW-1) found a lacerated wound outer side of right knee admeasuring 2x1.4 Cm. According to this witness the said injury could have been caused by hard and blunt object and was caused within 24 hours of its examination and simple in nature. Complainant (PW-1) has stated that the appellant and the co-accused Joker entered into his house and started assaulting him. The appellant demanded money and gave 50 rupees to him. He has identified both the accused persons. Sukhiya Bai (PW-2) in her deposition before the Court stated at the three accused persons assaulted her husband who were present in the court and the demanded the money from her husband. 10. After due assessment of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the learned trial Court gave a categorical findings there are certain contradictions and omissions did not make the statement of these witnesses incredible. The learned trial Court also gave a categorical finding that the appellant and the co-accused Joker in furtherance of common intention to robbery the complainant Kaluram from him and they have robed 50 rupees and caused simple injuries and for that purposes they have entered into the dwelling house of the complainant (PW-1) Kaluram. 11. On the basis of above discussion, the learned trial court convicted the appellant as stated above, and the finding recorded by the learned trial court does not find to be perverse. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 12. Since as per office of the Superintendent of Central Jail, Durg, the appellant has already served the sentence and his released after completion of the sentence, he is not required to surrender. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan