1 2025:CGHC:21757 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.1041 of 2007 1 - Farookh Ahmad, S/o Ajij Ahmad, aged about 24 years, Occupation Fabrication Repair Work, R/o Chota Bazar, Chirmiri, Police Station Chirmiri, District Korea (C.G.) Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station Chirmiri, District Korea (C.G.) Respondent(s) CRA No.1048 of 2007 1 - Madanlal S/o Gopal Gupta Aged About 25 Years Occupation- Jeep Driver, R/o Badi Bazar, Chirimiri, P.S.- Chirimiri, Distt. Korea, Chhattisgarh 2 - Dilip Singh S/o Rajkumar Aged About 30 Years Occupation- Denting-Painting, R/o- Indira Nagar, Badi Bazar, Chirimiri, P.S.- Chirimiri, Distt. Korea, Chhattisgarh 3 - Santosh S/o Jaglal Aged About 27 Years Occupation- Palledari, Permanent Address- Village- Jilda, P.S.- Khadgawan, Present Address- Badi Bazar, Chirimiri, Distt.- Korea, Chhattisgarh 4 - Rajesh Gupta S/o Babulal Gupta Aged About 24 Years Occupation- Kirana Shop, R/o- Badi Bazar, Chirimiri, P.S.- Chirimiri, Distt. Korea, Chhattisgarh 5 - (Deleted) Krishna (Died) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 15-04- 2025. Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA 2 ---Appellants Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S. Chirimiri, Distt.- Korea, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Pandey, GA Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 09/05/2025 1. Since both the appeals arise out of common judgment of conviction and order of sentence and same trial number, therefore, the same have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The present appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.11.2007 passed by the learned Session Judge/Special Judge, Electricity Act, Koriya, Baikunthpur (C.G.) in Session Trial No.05/2007, whereby the appellant Farookh has been convicted under Section 411 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years with default stipulations, whereas the other accused/appellants have been convicted under Section 136 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years and RI for 3 years, respectively, with 3 default stipulations. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.03.2007 a report was lodged by Arun Kumar Chakraworty, Assistant Engineer, CSEB, Korba that between 28.02.2007 to 13.03.2007, the unknown persons stolen the angles from Electricity Tower No 349, 350, 351, due to which the Tower No. 349 fell down on 14.03.2007 and electricity was prevented. Thereafter, the matter was investigated and on the basis of memorandum of accused the angels were seized and after arresting them challan was filed before the Magistrate concerned. 4. 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. The learned Trial Court has not considered Section 136 of the Electricity Act, according to which only fine can be imposed, even if the allegations leveled is found proved. The learned Trial Court ought to have considered that one of the seizure witness has turned hostile and second one is the person against whom criminal case is pending and thus he was under influence. The entire case of the prosecution is based on memorandum and the seized articles were not identified as per the provisions of Evidence Act and same was done in presence of police authorities, which is clear from the evidence of PW-1 4 Arun Kumar. Therefore, the appeals deserve to be allowed. Alternatively, He submits that the incident took place in the year 2007, both the appeals are pending since 2007, the appellants are presently aged about 40-45 years, they remained in jail for more than 8 months and have not misused the liberty granted by this Court and even no criminal antecedents have been stated by the prosecution against them, therefore, the appellants may be sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 5. 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 appellants, as such no interference is called for. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 137 of the Electricity Act against the accused/appellant Farookh in CRA No.1041/2007 and Section 136 of the Electricity Act and Section of 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act against the other co-accused/appellants in CRA No.1048/2007 and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant Farookh for the offence under 5 Section 411 of IPC and other accused persons were convicted under Section 136 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, as described in para 2 of the judgment. 8. PW-1 Arun Kumar, Assistant Engineer, CSEB stated that he lodged FIR (Ex-P/2) regarding the incident dated 09.04.2007 at police station Chirmiri and supported all proceedings of prosecution. Likewise Shankh Lal Gupta (PW-2), Narendra Nath Das (PW-3), Ramkumar Gupta (PW-4) and Maheshwar Singh also supported all proceedings of prosecution, however seizure and memorandum witnesses have not supported the memorandum/seizure of the appellants but they have admitted their signatures on the documents. PW-1 Arun Kumar and PW-2 Shankh Lal Gupta categorically stated against the appellants. The learned Trial Court also minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and rightly convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offence, therefore, the conviction of the appellants for the aforesaid offence is hereby affirmed. 9. As regards sentence, it is clear that the incident took place in the year 2007, both the appeals are pending since 2007, the appellants are presently aged about 40-45 years, they remained in jail for more than 8 months and have not misused the liberty granted by this Court and even no criminal antecedents have been stated by the prosecution against them, therefore, ends of justice would be served if the appellants are sentenced to the 6 period already undergone by them. Accordingly, the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 10. Both the appeals are partly allowed. 11. The appellants are reported to be on bail. 12. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellants are directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each 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 appellants 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