1 2025:CGHC:13094 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 240 of 2024 1 - Mukesh Basore @ Sanjay Kumar S/o Panna Lal Basore Aged About 23 Years. 2 - Ram Avatar Basore S/o Somaru Basore Aged About 46 Years. 3 - Panna Lal Basore S/o Late Daya Ram Aged About 56 Years. 4 - Rakesh Kumar Basore S/o Panna Lal Basore Aged About 20 Years. 5 - Mithun @ Devanand Basore S/o Mohar Lal Basore Aged About 20 Years. 6 - Genda Prasad Basore S/o Ram Bilas Aged About 23 Years. 7 - Kamal Chand Basore @ Patel Basore S/o Late Dayaram Basore Aged About 48 Years. All are R/o Village Mahewa, Chowki-Wadrafnagar, Police Station Basantpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Appellants(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Basantpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ---- Respondent 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Sunita Sahu, PL -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 19.03.2025 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.01.2024, passed by learned Session Judge, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), in ST No.31/2023, whereby the appellants stand convicted and sentence as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 395 read with Section 149 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 07 years & fine of 200, in default of payment of fine 01 month additional RI (to all the appellants). Under Section 324 read with Section 149 of IPC RI for 02 years & fine of Rs. 200, in default of payment of fine 01 month additional RI (to all the appellants). 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is this that complainant, namely, Kunwar Lal Dewangan lodged written report at Police Chowki - Wadrafnagar, alleging therein that on 15.12.2022, he went to Mahewa Market for purchasing vegetable, where appellants/ accused have abused and assaulted him by means of knife, hand & fist and also looted Rs.4,500/-. Based upon report, FIR was registered against the appellants for offence under Sections 3 294, 506 Part-2, 395, 307 read with section 149 of IPC, Section 25(1-b)(b) & 27 of the Arms Act. 3. On completion of investigation, challan/charge-sheet was filed and based upon which, learned Court below has framed the charges against the appellants. 4. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 09 witnesses. Statement of appellants (accused) were also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which they denied all incriminating evidence appearing against them, pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants in the manner as described in Para-1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the evidence available on record as the Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence of prosecution in its true perspective. The appellants have neither looted any amount from the complainant/victim nor inflicted any injury to him. On the date of incident, the appellants also went to the market for purchasing vegetable, however, without any specific evidence/material, the prosecution has implicated them in the alleged crime/offence. Prosecution has 4 not seized any incriminating article from the appellants. Prosecution failed to adduce any reliable evidence/material to prove the guilt against the appellants. There are material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Prosecution has completely failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction recorded and sentence awarded deserves to be set- aside. Alternatively, it is argued that if the Court finds that alleged offence/crime has been committed by the appellants, then considering the fact that there was no pre-meditation, on the spur of moment incident had taken place, injury sustained by the victim is simple in nature, further appellant Nos.2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 have already served about 1 years & 10 months of jail sentence, whereas appellant Nos.1 & 4 have already served about 02 years and 03 months of jail sentence, it was first offence of appellants, sentence awarded to appellants be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment and submits that there are specific evidence/material available on record which shows that appellants have committed the alleged offence/crime, hence, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the recorded placed on record. 5 9. Section 391 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under : “391. Dacoity.— When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit “dacoity”. 10. PW-3/complainant-victim in his evidence has stated that he recognizes the accused persons. On the date of alleged incident, he had gone to market to buy vegetables, at that time, accused/Rakesh Kumar was trying to steal Rs.4,500 from his pocket, but he caught hold of his hand and not leaving his hand, then accused/Rakesh alongwith co-accused persons starting abusing and beating him. Accused/Rakesh Kumar assaulted him by means of knife, due to which, he suffered injury on his head. Thereafter, accused/Rakesh alongwith co-accused persons have looted the money (Rs.4,500 )and fled away from spot. 11. Considering facts of the case, nature of offence, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the fact that victim has identified the accused persons on the spot, particularly the evidence of victim and other prosecution witnesses, further considering the provision of Section 391 of IPC, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any mistake in arriving at a 6 conclusion that appellants are guilty for the aforementioned offence/crime. 12. As regards quantum of sentence, considering the fact that there was no pre-meditation and on the spur of moment incident had taken place, injury of victim is simple in nature, amout which was looted from the victim is only Rs.4,500/-, further appellant Nos.2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 have already served about 1 years & 10 months of jail sentence, appellant Nos.1 & 4 have already served about 02 years and 03 months of jail sentence, appellants are not having any previous antecedents, sentence awarded to appellants be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of appellants under Section 395 & 324 read with Section 149 of IPC is hereby affirmed. Sentence imposed upon appellants under aforementioned Sections are hereby modified and reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, sentence of fine amount shall remain intact. 14. The record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE J/-