1 2025:CGHC:41510 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.463 of 2015 1 - Akshat Singh @ Solu And Ors. S/o Chitranjan Singh Rajput Aged About 18 Years R/o Alpura, Ps Sandesh, Civil And Rev. Distt. Bhojpur Aara Bihar 2 - Sunil Kumar @ Devendra Rai S/o Virendra Rai Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Purhara, Police Station Chauri, Civil And Rev. Distt. Bhojpur Aara Bihar 3 - Neeraj Kumar S/o Tej Narayan Roy Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Bardiha, Ps Charpokhali, Civil And Rev. Distt. Bhojpur Aara Bihar Appellants (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) CRA No. 598 of 2015 1 - Dolchand Patel S/o Sitaram Patel Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Kanwarpali, Police Station Saraipali, Civil And Revenue District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh Appellant (s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Through The Police Station Sariya, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA 2 CRA No. 483 of 2015 1 - Bharat Das Mahant And Anr. S/o Firat Ram Mahant Aged About 23 Years R/o Village- Doma, P.S.- Malkharauda, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Prakash Das S/o Laxmi Das Mahant Aged About 23 Years R/o Village- Doma, P.S.- Malkharauda, Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh Appellant (s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Through District Magistrate Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (The cause title has been taken from the CIS Software) For Appellants : Ms. Indira Tripathi and Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Afroj Khan, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 18/08/2025 1. Since the present batch of appeals arise out of common judgment of conviction and order of sentence and same session trial number, therefore, the same have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by a common order. 2. The present appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.03.2015 passed by the learned Upper Session Judge, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) in ST No.18/2014, whereby the appellants have been 3 convicted under Sections 397/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years with default stipulations. 3. During pendency of the appeal, the appellants Akshat Singh and Sunil Kumar have died, therefore, CRA No.463/2015 in respect of the said appellants has abated. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Uday Ram Sahu lodged a written report on 06.02.2014 in Police Station Saria stating therein that he works as a driver of Tapeshwar Sharma. On 05.02.2014 at about 11.45 am, he was driving Tapeshwar Sharma's dark green colour Bolero bearing registration No. CG-13-C-5339. Near Parasrampur at about 12.30 PM four men were standing and out of them two men stopped the vehicle by showing their hands and asked for lift to Saria. The complainant Uday Ram Sahu agreed and allowed them to board the vehicle. When they reached near Gandhi Putla, Saria then one men sitting at the back side of the vehicle pointed a country made pistol and two other men took out knives and told him to drive straight otherwise he will be dead. On this the complainant went to kinkari dam in Sohela Road through Baramkela and stopped the vehicle near Durga Temple when he was told to and later on he was taken inside the jungle and his hands and legs were tied by rope and he was beaten and looted Rs.700/- cash, mobile phone and Bolero vehicle. Thereafter a case was registered against the accused persons and they were arrested. After investigation, charge sheet was filed before the 4 Magistrate concerned. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and material available on record, learned trial court convicted the accused/appellants, as mentioned in para 2 of the judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants jointly submit that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The complainant Uday Ram Sahu has not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. There is no independent witnesses in the present case and all the witnesses are police persons, therefore, entire prosecution case is doubtful. The owner of vehicle has been examined and he also turned hostile before the Trial Court. The finding recorded by the Trial Court is totally erroneous and is based on the surmises and conjunctures. Therefore, the appeals deserve to be allowed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Honb’le Supreme Court in the matter of Dilawar Singh vs State of Delhi, reported in (2007) 12 SCC 641. 6. 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. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material 5 available on record. 8. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 397 read with Section 149 of IPC and in alternate Section 394 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the appellants of the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and convicted the appellants under Section 397/149 of IPC, as mentioned in para 2 of the judgment. 9. The complainant Uday Ram Sahu (PW-8) stated that he does not recognize the accused persons. He stated that he took Bolero car bearing No.CG-13-C-5339 to Village Sariya, then near Mahanadi bridge, two people demanded lift and sat on the car, thereafter they got smell something to him and thereafter took car by leaving him in forest, thereafter he lodged the report to the concerned police station. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him but he denied all suggestions of the prosecution. He also denied this suggestion that in TIP he identified everybody. 10. PW-9 Tapeshwar Sharma stated that on 05.02.2014 he had sent his driver Uday Ram Sahu along his car for Village Sariya, then near Mahanadi bridge, two people demanded lift and sat on the car, thereafter they got smell something to my driver Udayram Sahu and thereafter took his car, thereafter he lodged the report to the concerned police station. The prosecution declared him 6 hostile and cross-examined him but he denied all suggestions of prosecution. 11. Ram Sundar Sharma (PW-10) stated that he is the brother-in-law of Tapeshwar Sharma. He stated that his driver Uday Ram Sahu told him that he took Bolero car bearing No.CG-13-C-5339 to Village Sariya, then near Mahanadi bridge, two people demanded lift and sat on the car, thereafter they got smell something to him and thereafter took car by leaving him in forest. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him but he denied all suggestions of prosecution. 12. Prem Singh Sidar (PW-6) constable supported the prosecution case. The constable Prem Singh Sidar stated that the Inspector had taken memorandum of accused Dolchand Patel. He admitted his signatures on memorandum from Ex-P/4 to Ex-P/9 on A to A part and arrest memo from Ex-P/17 to P/19 on A to A part, but in arrest memo Pradeep Upadhyay (PW-12) did not support any seizure and memorandum. He only admitted his signatures on B to B part and he denied any seizure before him. The prosecution declared him hostile but he denied all suggestions of the prosecution. 13. The Investigating Officer Gopal Dhurwe (PW-14) stated that he prepared memorandum statement and seizure memo (Ex-P/4 to Ex-P/9). In the cross-examination, he admitted this suggestion that he does not know that Pradeep Upadhyay is witness in various other cases. He also admitted that constable Prem Singh 7 Sidar is his subordinate employee. PW-14 has not clearly proved that the independent witnesses including the complainant supported the prosecution case and also the complainant Uday Ram Sahu did not identify the accused before the learned Trial Court and he also stated that only two persons stopped him and snatched Bolero and he denied this suggestion that all the accused persons looted him, but the learned Trial Court did not consider the statement of independent witnesses and convicted the appellants on the basis of the statement of the police personnel. 14. The complainant Uday Ram Sahu also denied TIP and seizure. Pradeep Upadhyay (PW-12) has also not supported the prosecution case, as such the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the accused persons committed robbery of bolero and at that time they were using deadly weapon. Though the learned Trial Court rightly acquitted the appellants under Section 25 of the Arms Act and but it wrongly convicted them under Section 397/149 of IPC, as such the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is not based on the proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record. 15. Consequently, all the appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges under Section 397/149 of IPC. 16. The appellant Neeraj Kumar is reported to be in jail, whereas all 8 other appellants are on bail. The appellant Neeraj Kumar be released forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in any other offence. 17. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, all 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. 18. 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. The copy of this judgment be also sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary action. Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala