1 / 6 2025:CGHC:17607 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 1363 of 2023 Santoshi Sahu W/o Lekhram Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Dhaba Anjora, Thana Bori, Distt. Durg (C.G.) At Present R/o Rama Jhoparpatti, Nagpur (Maharastra). --- Appellant(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Thana -Kawardha, District - Kabeerdham, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate. For State : Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 11.04.2025 1. Challenge in this criminal appeal is to impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.06.2023 passed by learned Session Judge, District : Kabeerdham, (CG), in Session Trial No.09/2020, whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentence as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 212 of the IPC. Rigorous imprisonment for 06 months. 2 / 6 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.12.2019 at 11.00 am, when victim (Gaya Bai) was at agricultural field, two unknown persons came there on motorcycle and asked her to pluck the pods of Rahar ( राहर की फली) and bring it. When victim was plucking the pods of Rahar in the field, one of them pressed her mouth forcefully and other one has cut her ears by means of blade and snatched her gold earrings (worth Rs.30,000/-) and, thereafter, they fled away from the spot. 3. The allegation against the present appellant is that she harbours the accused persons (Durgesh Nishad and Mahesh Patil) knowing that they are the accused of alleged offence/crime. Based upon memorandum of accused persons, present appellant has been arrested in the alleged crime/offence. 4. On completion of investigation, challan/charge sheet was filed against the appellant based upon which, trial Court framed the charge against her. 5. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 10 witnesses, whereas the appellant-accused in support of her defence not examined any witness. Statement of appellant (accused) was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all incriminating evidence appearing against her, pleaded innocence and false implication. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence/material 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. 3 / 6 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the evidence available on record. Prosecution has failed to prove the ingredient of offence under Section 212 of IPC as there is no specific evidence/material produced by the prosecution to prove the fact that present appellant is also involved in any manner in the alleged incident/crime. Statement of prosecution witnesses are contradictory to each other even they have not properly identified the appellant in the Test Identification Parade as well as before the Court at the time of evidence. The gold earrings (worth Rs.30,000/-) alleged to be looted/snatched from the victim/complainant, has not been seized from the appellant/accused. Witnesses to the seizure and arrest memo have turned hostile and have not supported the case of prosecution. There are many contradictions, omission and improvement in the evidence prosecution witnesses, which are not properly considered by the trial Court. Hence, looking to the entire evidence/material, appellant may be acquitted from the aforementioned offence/crime. Alternatively, it is argued that if the Court finds that alleged incident has been committed by the appellant, then considering the fact that appellant is a lady aged about 32 years, she is not having any previous criminal incident, sentence awarded to appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by her. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment would submit that based on material/evidence available on record, trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order/judgment and convicted the appellant for the aforementioned 4 / 6 offence/crime. Hence, present appeals being sans merits are liable to be dismissed. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment. 10. PW-1/Victim/complainant in her evidence has stated that on the date of alleged incident, when she was guarding the agricultural field, accused (Durgesh Nishad and Mahesh Patil) came there on motorcycle and asked her to pluck the pods of Rahar ( राहर की फली) and bring it to them. When she was plucking the pods of Rahar, accused persons pressed her mouth forcefully from the back side, cut her ears by blade and looted/snatched her gold earrings. 11. PW10/Sub-Inspector Geetanjali Sinha (Investigation Officer) in her evidence has stated that after taking the appellant -Santoshi Sahu in custody, her memorandum statement was recorded as Ex.P-14 in which “Santoshi Sahu has accepted that she had sold the alleged gold earings brought by the accused (Durgesh and Mahesh) in the Sai Jewellers and out of the sold amount, accused/Durgesh had given her Rs. 1000/-.” . PW-10 further stated that she had seized Rs.1,000/- from the appellant- accused Santoshi Sahu. Memorandum statement of appellant-accused is also supported by Narrotam Kaushik (PW-4) before whom Panchanama Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.16 were conducted. 12. PW-7/Satish Dewangan in his evidence has deposed that on 18.12.2019, the accused persons (Mahesh & Durgesh) came to his shop (Sai Jewelers, Hanuman Chowk) with his customer (Santoshi Sahu). Santoshi Sahu said that her brother Durgesh needs money so he wants to sell the two pieces of khinwa and two lockets of gold 5 / 6 (weighing 8.950 grams and 1.950 grams), to which, PW-7 has purchased the said articles/ornaments and given Rs.25,178/- to the accused. 13. Looking to the above evidence it is clear that appellant-Santoshi Sahu has helped the accused persons (Durgesh and Mahesh), who snatched/looted the articles/gold earing from the complainant/victim and through the appellant/Santoshi Sahu, the accused/Durgesh has sold the alleged articles/gold ornament in the Sai Jewelers, Hanuman Chowk, further considering the fact that out of the sold amount, appellant - Santoshi Sahu also taken Rs.1,000/- from the accused/Durgesh, this Court is of the considered view that trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence/crime. 14. 14. As regards the quantum of sentence, considering that incident in question took place as back as in the year 2019 and now almost more than 05 years have passed; appellant is a lady aged about 32 years; she is not having any previous criminal incident, further considering the role played by the appellant in the alleged crime/offence, this Court is of the opinion that sentence imposed by trial Court upon the appellant (RI for 06 months) appears to be on higher side. So keeping in view all the circumstances, mentioned above, ends of justice will be served if the sentence imposed upon appellant is reduced from RI 06 months to RI 03 months. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of appellant under Section 212 of the IPC, the sentence imposed upon her by trial Court is reduced from RI for 06 months to RI 03 months. 6 / 6 16. 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/-