1 2025:CGHC:58470 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 503 of 2005 Jagdish Khairwar, S/o. Halkan Khirwar, aged 35 years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o. Village Kanakpur, PS Ramanujganj, Distt. Sarguja (CG) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through PS Basantpur, District Sarguja (CG) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. DN Prajapati, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Prabha Sharma, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment on Board 02/12/2025 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the CrPC against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.5.2004 passed by Second Upper Sessions Judge, Ambikapur Distt. Surguja (CG) in Session Case No.137/2002, whereby the learned Second Upper Sessions Judge, after holding the appellant and three other accused persons guilty, convicted and sentenced them in the following manner:- Sl. No. Conviction under Section Jail Sentence Fine Sentence Default stipulation 01. 395 IPC RI for 05 years Rs.100/- RI for 01 month BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.12.03 17:46:41 +0530 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 18.12.2001 at about 05.00 pm, the appellant along with 04 other accused persons entered the house of complainant Balbeer Singh Yadav and compelled him to provide money for food, looted Rs.200/- from him, assaulted him by means of wooden club and also tied his hands with scarf. It was also complained against the appellant and other accused persons that they looted various other persons of the village. The appellant and other accused persons were caught by the villagers and thereafter report was lodged. Based on the above facts, FIR for the offence under Section 395 IPC was registered against the appellant and 04 other accused persons. After usual investigation, charge sheet for the offence under Section 395 IPC was filed against the appellant and 04 other accused persons before JMFC, Ramanujganj, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur), thereafter the case was transferred to Second Upper Sessions Judge, (Link Court) Ramanujganj. 3. The learned Upper Sessions Judge, Link Court, Ramanujganj framed charges for the offence under Section 395 IPC against the appellant and 03 other co-accused persons, who abjured the guilt and entered into trial. 4. To bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents. Examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC was recorded, in which the appellant and other accused persons denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence, claiming themselves to be innocent and false implication. No defence witness has been examined by the appellant. 5. After completion of the trial, the learned Second Upper Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant and other three accused 3 persons as has been mentioned in the opening paragraph. As per the impugned judgment, out of five accused, one accused was minor, therefore, separate charge sheet was filed against him in the juvenile Court. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred instant appeal. 6. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant/accused would submit that the appellant does not want to press this appeal as regards to the conviction part of the impugned judgment, rather he would confine his argument only to the sentence part. He further submits that as per the case of the prosecution itself, it is a case of loot of Rs.200/-. The appellant remained in jail for about 03 years and 08 months, therefore, his jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment of conviction, as also the sentence part of the judgment. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the record of the Court below with utmost circumspection. 9. It is a case of loot of Rs.200/- by the appellant and other co- accused persons after entering to the house of the complainant. Though learned counsel for the appellant is not pressing instant appeal on the conviction part of the impugned judgment, but having gone through the evidence of complainant Balbeer Yadav (PW-1), his son Shiv Nath (PW-2) and daughter Savita (PW-3) and further considering the deposition of Raj Narayan Singh (PW-4), Dashrath (PW-5), Lakshman Ahir (PW-6), who have also supported the statement of aforesaid witnesses, it is found that the learned Upper Sessions Judge has not committed any mistake in holding the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 395 IPC. 4 10. So far as the sentence part is concerned, the alleged incident of loot pertains to only Rs.200/-, the appellant remained in jail during trial and even after his conviction from the date of his arrest i.e. from 23.12.2001 to 22.8.2005. Thus, he remained in jail for 03 years 08 months. This case is pending since 2002, therefore, having considered aforesaid facts and totality of the case, no useful purpose would be served to send the appellant behind the bar to complete the remaining jail sentence, rather ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 11. In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment against the appellant is maintained. Fine part is also maintained. But jail sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him, i.e. 03 years and 08 months (23.12.2001 to 22.8.2005). The appellant is said to be on bail. He need not surrender. The bail bonds furnished by the appellant shall remain in operation for a period of 06 months from today, in view of the provisions contained under Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 12. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with record of the concerned Court below be transmitted forthwith for compliance and needful, if any. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini