1 / 5 2025:CGHC:19450 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 208 of 2016 Mithun Singh Nat S/o Anand Nat Aged About 24 Years R/o Kandarja, Vijaynagar Police Station Kapu, District: Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate through Legal Aid For State : Ms. Smita Jha, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 29.04.2025 1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.02.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2016, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District: Korba (C.G.), whereby judgment dated 05.01.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora, District: Korba SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.04.30 17:19:43 +0530 2 / 5 (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 1990 of 2014 wherein, the applicant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned below: Conviction Sentence U/s 392 of IPC RI for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, additional SI for 15 days. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 20.10.2014, complainant Pavan Kumar Tanwar, along with his wife Yogita and son Vivek were going to withdraw the amount at State Bank of India situated at Bankimogra, where he has withdrawn Rs. 1,50,000/- out of which Rs. 10,000/- was kept in pocket along with other documents and remaining Rs. 1,40,000/- was kept in a bag. At about 12:45 pm, when they reached near Saraswati School Bakimogra, the present applicant along with his friend came on their way and looted the said bag and ran away from the spot. Thereafter the matter was reported. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR was registered against the applicant and pursuant to memorandum statement of the applicant, said articles were seized from his possession. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under the aforesaid sections were filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora, (C.G.). The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence convicted & sentenced the applicant as mentioned in Para 1. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 17.02.2016, dismissed the appeal while upholding the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution has failed to 3 / 5 prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have not appreciated the evidence available on record. Hence, the conviction order passed by the both the Courts is erroneous and needs interference by this Court. He further submits that the applicant has remained in jail from 01.12.2014 to 05.01.2016 and 17.02.2016 to 08.03.2016 i.e. for 1 year 1 month 25 days, and is facing the lis for more than 11 years. 6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State opposed the revision and submitted that from the evidence of PW-3 Smt. Yogita and PW-2 Pawan Kumar, it is clear that the applicant has committed the crime-in-question and that, the applicant has been clearly identified by the witnesses more so, the seized property was also recovered from the possession of the applicant, therefore, both the learned Courts have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely. 8. PW-2 Pawan Kumar, who is the complainant, has stated that the incident took place a day before last Diwali at about 12 noon. He along with his wife Yogita and son Vivek aged 12 years had gone to State Bank by motorcycle. He had withdrawn Rs.1,50,000/- from his wife's account from State Bank. After withdrawing the money, they left for Delwadih via Bankimogra. They had to stop at Bankimogra due to some work therein. When they reached near Saraswati School located at a distance of about 100 meters from the bank, at the same time, the present applicant came on a bicycle from behind with one of his companions, snatched the bag containing cash and fled away on the motorcycle. He further stated that in the bag there Rs. 4 / 5 1,40,000 cash and he had withdrawn Rs. 10,000 from the bank and kept it separately. He has also stated that there were pass books in the bag, one in his name and another in his wife's name, a Samsung mobile and a life insurance bond form. The statement of this witness has been fully supported by PW-3 Yogita, wife of Pawan Kumar. 9. PW-6 Shruti Singh, who is the investigating officer, has stated in her court statement that on the basis of the disclosure statement given by the applicant-accused, she took the applicant to the drain near CSEB Hospital Darri, where the applicant-accused took out a plastic bag and gave it to her in which she found a State Bank of India passbook in the name of P.K Tawar, a State Bank of India passbook in the name of Mrs. Yogitabai, SBI Life Insurance Policy, a Samsung mobile, RC book of a motorcycle Bajaj Pulsar CG 12 AG 2353, etc., were seized vide seizure memo Exhibit.P-3 which bears her signature. The version of this witness has been corroborated by the statement of PW-2 Pawan Kumar which is sufficient to connect the applicant in crime-in-question. Thus, the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court were absolutely justified in convicting and sentencing the applicant, which finding is a correct finding and needs no interference by this Court. 10. As regards sentence part, considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the fact that the applicant has undergone for 1 year 1 month and 25 days, he is facing the lis since November 2014 i.e. for more than 11 years, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 5 / 5 11. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant under the aforementioned section is affirmed however, he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is affirmed. 12. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Saurabh