1 2025:CGHC:47250 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 101 of 2008 1 - Manoj Kumar Rathore @ Potti, S/o Jeevan Rathore, Aged about 22 years, R/o Sivni, Thana Champa, District-Janjgir-Champa, C.G. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station- Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 15/09/2025 1. The appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.11.2007 passed by learned II Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Janjgir (C.G.) in Sessions Trial 2 No. 194/2007 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 394 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for six months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12.06.2007, at about 5:00 p.m., the victim/complainant- Basant Kumar went to Village- Balpur on his Motorcycle. Thereafter, the victim parked his Motorcycle just near the house of one Bhaiyaram and walked towards the Village Darrabhata Umraeli Khar, which is an illegal/unauthorised place for gambling (Juwa). There the victim had given cash of Rs. 2,000/- to one Kalidas and just after few minutes he had taken it back. After staying there for sometime, the victim went back at around 08:30 p.m. and after having dinner with aforesaid Bhaiyaram and stayed there for some time, when he was going from Balpur Umraeli Naher road to his home saragaon at around 09:30 PM, he saw four persons sitting near the road side. All of them stood up and forcefully stopped the victim. The victim recognized two of them in the light of his Motorcycle headlight, he recognized one as Manoj Rathore and other as Ranjeet Chouhan of village and he didn't see the faces of two others as they hided their faces. The alleged accused forcefully took him of from the Motorcycle and asked him to give his money to them. When the victim refused/resisted to give his money, they had started assaulting him with lathi and forcefully took cash of Rs. 10,000/- diary and specs from him and ran away towards agriculture field. Due to said assault, 3 victim/complainant sustained injuries over his head and on his right wrist. Thereafter, the victim went to the house of Bhaiyaram and narrated the whole incident to him and before that the victim met with one Rohit Kumar, he also told Rohit Kumar about the incident and went with him to the concerned police station and lodged First Information Report (FIR) against the accused/appellant. After completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections, 394, 325 and 397 of IPC. From where the matter was committed to learned Sessions Judge. Thereafter, the learned trial Court received the matter on transfer for trial. The learned trial Court framed the charge under Section 397 of IPC against the appellant, to which appellant abjured his guild and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. In his defence, he examined one witness namely Sammelal as D.W.-1. 4. Learned trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 4 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not challenging the conviction part of the impugned judgment, however, he is confining his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. He further submits that the incident took place in the year 2007, this appeal is pending since 2008, at the time of incident the appellant was aged about 22 years and as of now he is aged about 40 years; appellant has already remained in jail for about 10 months. Therefore, considering the above facts, his undergone period may be considered to be sufficient sentence for the alleged offence. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the finding arrived at by the learned trial Court is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and, therefore, is not liable to be interfered with. 7. Learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 8. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charge under Section 397 of IPC against the appellant and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted the appellant under Section 394 of IPC and sentenced him as prescribed in para 1 of this judgment. 9. Although the learned counsel for the appellant is not challenging the conviction for the offence under Section 394 of IPC, yet this Court considered the evidence of all prosecution witnesses particularly Basant Kumar Rathore (P.W.-1), Bhaiya Ram (P.W.- 2), Pooran Karsh (P.W.-3) and Suresh Kumar Panda (P.W.-5). 5 10. Dr. H.S. Chandel (P.W.-8) examined the complainant- Basant Kumar Rathore (P.W.-1) and advised him to get his X-ray done. As per X-ray report (Ex.P/16), there was no fracture in the skull but a fracture was found near the left radius wrist joint. 11.Close scrutiny of statements of all witnesses including the medical evidence make it prove that the appellant had committed loot with the complainant Basant Kumar Rathore (P.W.-1) and also assaulted him with lathi. The learned trial Court also minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 394 of IPC, therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 394 of IPC is found to be in accordance with law. 12. So far as the sentence part of the appellant is concerned, keeping in view the facts that incident took place in the year 2007 and nearly 18 years have rolled by since then, appellant is now aged about 40 years and he remained in jail for about 10 months; the appellant is on bail since long and did not misuse the liberty so granted, hence taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the sentence awarded under Section 394 of IPC to the appellant by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining conviction of the appellant under Section 394 of IPC the sentence imposed thereunder by the trial Court is hereby reduced to the 6 period already undergone by him. The fine amount imposed by the learned trial Court thereunder shall remain intact. 14. The appellant is reported to be on bail. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. (481 of the B.N.S.S.), the appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No. 45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned 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 appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 15. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV