1 2025:CGHC:19913 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 86 of 2016 1 - Sonu @ Mustaqu S/o Imtiyaz Miya Aged About 29 Years Occupation Labour, R/o Village Bandua, Post Shahpur, Police Station Chainpur, District Palamu, Jharkhand., Jharkhand --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kusmi, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Civil District Surguja, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pankaj Kamlesh on behalf of Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 30/04/2025 1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.01.2016 passed by the learned Addi- tional Sessions Judge Ramanujganj, District- Sarguja (Ambika- 2 pur) (C.G.), in Sessions Case No. 182/2013 whereby the appel- lant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Conviction Sentence U/s 411 of IPC R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of fine, additional R.I. for 2 months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23.07.2012 at 7:30 pm the appellant and other co-accused Ikrar Ansari @ Nanku have committed house trespass to the house of complainant Jagmo- han ram and committed robbery of Rs. 8000/- and one Nokia mo- bile from the house of the complainant namely Jagmohan Ram. At the same time two other mobile has been looted from Larang Sai and Rampreet. On the next date of incident, i.e., on 24.07.2012 the complainant Jagmohan Ram has lodged FIR at police station Kusmi, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, (C.G.). Thereafter, the case was registered as Crime No. 61/2012 for the offence punishable under Sections 450, 394, 397 and 398 of IPC. 3. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 16 wit- nesses. Statements of appellant (accused) was also recorded un- der Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all incriminating evi- dence appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false impli- cation. However, no evidence was adduced by him in his de- fence. 4. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating evidence available on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment ac- 3 quitted the accused under Section 450, 394, 398 of IPC. How- ever, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant in the man- ner as described above of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned order of conviction passed by the Trial Court is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record, hence the same is liable to be set-aside. He further contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and no prima facie case has been made out against him. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellant and therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of all the charges. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confine his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. Further, he submits that the appel- lant at present is aged about 39 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2012 and he has already undergone 1 year and 4 months of jail sentence awarded by the trial Court in Sessions Case No. 182/2013. There is also no previous criminal an- tecedents against the appellant. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the Trial Court has rightly appreciated and considered the documents available on record. 4 Being so, the impugned judgment is strictly in accordance with law and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record placed on record. 8. PW-1 has deposed in his examination-in-chief that he did not know the accused persons. The incident happened at about 6:00 pm. At the time of incident her wife, brother-in-law, sister and fa- ther were sitting in the Veranda and were talking to each other. Then suddenly his three dogs started barking loudly. His father went to open the door then the accused tried to hit his father on his head but could not do so. He went to the villagers to tell them that some person has entered his house then the villagers came but till then the accused fled away. His wife told him that there were 4 accused persons who entered the house and has looted 14 thousand rupees and one Nokia mobile phone from the Ration shop which is running by him. 9. PW-2 has deposed in her examination-in-chief that she did not know the accused persons. The incident happened at her house at around 6:30 pm. At the time of incident she was cooking food. Her father-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law and her husband were sitting in the Veranda. Suddenly her dogs started barking loudly upon which her father-in-law went to open the door. The accused persons tried to hit her father-in-law on his head but they could not. She further deposed that when her family members were running outside the house she also tried to escape but two of the 5 accused persons called her and asked her where she has kept money in her house. 10. PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 have supported the version of PW-1 and PW-2. 11. PW-6 has deposed that he lives in neighbourhood of PW-1 and on the date of incident at around 7:00 pm he was washing his hands and legs and at the same time he heard the sound of shouting from the house of PW-1. He went to look for the matter and he asked one person about the incident then that person tried to hit him with stick (lathi) upon which he ran away. The same person who tried to hit him locked him in his house. 12. PW-7 has deposed that on the date of incident one person named Makund who lives in the village died, so he was going to see him. Since there was dark outside he was lighting torch of his mobile and was going to see the dead person along with Jaswant. Two persons were standing outside the house of PW-1 and two persons were inside the house of PW-1. The two per- sons who were standing outside the house asked me for my mo- bile so that they can use the torch light. They then pushed him and Jaswant and locked him and Jaswant in the room of house of PW-1. They have already locked Ramprit and Tilchand in the same room. 13. It is the most important fact that the mobile phone number of wit- ness Rampreet was 8462945399. according tot he call details of the said phone number (Ex. P-21), the IMEI number of the said 6 said phone is 356483041017490. According to the document (Ex. P-25), the said IMEI number is being used in SIM number 8252470308 and SIM number 8252332548 from 24.08.2012 to 27.11.2012, from which it is clear that the mobile phone looted from Rampreet was used in SIM number 8252470308 and 8252332548 after the robbery. It was done in 1957, which was is- sued in the name of Zahoor Bibi and Feku Mian respectively. Also, from the statement of Inspector A. Kujur (PW-16) it is proved that “the mobile phone looted from Rampreet whose IMEI number is 356483041017490 was used in the SIM number 8252332548 issued in the name of accused Son’s father-in-law Feku Mian after the incident and the said phone was recovered from the possession of accused Sonu. 14. Therefore, taking a cumulative note of the facts and circumstance of the case, the statements of witnesses, the documents pre- sented by the prosecution, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the findings recorded by the trial Court convicting the ac- cused/appellant under Section 411 of IPC are based on due ap- preciation of the evidence on record and deserve to be and are hereby maintained. 15. As regards sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of 2 years rigorous imprisonment imposed by the trial Court under Section 411 of IPC appears to be excessively on the higher side. Also, the accused person has remained behind bars for about an year, therefore, this Court is of 7 the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone. However, fine imposed by trial Court is maintained. 16. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 17. The appellant is reported to be in on bail. His bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the same shall remain operative for a further period of 6 months in light of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. 18. The Trial Court record (TCR) along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compli- ance and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima