IN IHB HIGH COU&I OF JIOICATURE OJ? CHH&IIISSARH Al BILASPUR. CR, Revision No.' ^ —/2004 APPLICANI : (in oail) ...^^r "• "c^YlHC{ NON-APPLICANT :- RAKESHWAB. S/0 BISHAL SATANAMI aged about 56 years,(now ^5t7years) ..^. R/0 - Village NikUBi, P.3» Arju"la Occupation agrioulturist lahsil and Distt. Ourg(C.S.) ;;: VERSUS ss: STATE OF CHHATTISQ^Ul. C&IMINAL RBfISION UNQ®SECIION -y^ REtfi WI'EH SBS'riON ^iOI O? COOE OF CRIMINAL PROCiOURE, 1973. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATLBILASPUR (Hon. h/lr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Revision No.67of2004 APPLICANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Rameshwar son of Bishal Satanami. State of Chhattisgarh Shri N.S. Dhurandhar counsel for the applicant. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan PL for the respondent/State CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 397/401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ORDER (08.12.2009) With the consent of the parties the matter is heard finally. 2. This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 27.1.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Balod in Criminal Appeal No. 94/2003 confirming the judgment dated 15.2.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balod in Criminal Case No. 1210/2002 whereby learned Magistrate had convicted the applicant for an offence punishable under Section 379 ofthe Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 1000, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that on 24.4.1995 FIR (Ex. P-1) was lodged by complainant Raghu Ram (PW-1) alleging that in the intervening night of 22/23-4-1995 he had parked his bullock cart in his thrashing field which in the next morning was found to be missing. It is further alleged that the fact of his missing bullock cart was informed to one Horilal (PW-7) of the same village and when search thereof was made, the same was found in the thrashing field of the applicant in a different village i.e. Nikum. 4. By judgment dated 15.2.2003 learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balod convicted the applicant under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ^' "-.^ ""^.. — ^ ._, one year and pay fine of Rs. 1000, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Against the order passed by the Magistrate, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Balod who vide judgment impugned dismissed the same and confirmed the judgment passed by the Magistrate. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgments of both the Courts below. 6. Counsel for the app.licantsubmits that the identification of the bullock cart is not in accordance with law because the complainant who had identified the bullock cart had already seen the same before the report was lodged. AccQrding to him, seizure of the bullock cart has not been proved in accordance with law as the seizure witnesses Son Singh (PW-2) and Bodhanlal (PW-5) have not supported the case of the prosecution. 7. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that the identification has been done strictly in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same. He submits that though Sbn Singh (PW-2) has not supported the entire case of the prosecution, Bodhanlal (PW-5) has supported the same on material particulars. According to him, the accused/applicant has made confession before the Panchayat meeting and confession made by him has been supported by Deep Narayan Yadav (PW-9) - the Up Sarpanch of village Nikum and Horilal (PW-7). He submits that Horilal (PW-7) has categoricatty stated that when he along with the complainant made search of the bullock cart, the same was found in the thrashing field of the applicant/accused and thereafter Panchayat meeting was convened where accused/applicant had admitted the commission of theft of the bullock cart and for which he was fined also. 8. From the FIR, evidence of the complainant and that of Horilal (PW-7) it is clear that the bullock cart of the complainant was stolen by the applicant and the same was found in his possession. The record r- ) 'V-- / ^ ^ :A ~'-<, IFIIfc -''/"" <-''"' ^•T -s- further reveals that the accused/applicant has admitted the theft of the bullock cart having been committed by him. Statement of Deepnarayan (Pw-9) - Up Sarpanch of village Nikum further makes it clear that the bullock cart was seized from the thrashing field of the applicant/accused, Panchayat was called in which accused/applicant had admitted the guilt and for which he was fined by the Panchayat. Moreover, the prosecution has filed a letter dated 26.4.1995 (Ex. P-5) of Up Sarpanch of village Nikum namely Deepnarayan Yadav (PW-9) in which it is mentioned that the accused/applicant has admitted the theft of bullock cart. So far as identification of the bullock cart is concerned, the same was done vide Ex. P-3 which has been supported by Haravram (PW-3). Likewise, Horilat (PW-7) has atso supported the Ex. P-3 regarding identification of the bullock cart. 9. In view of the aforesaid factual position of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the judgment impugned convicting the applicant as mentioned above does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Conviction part of the judgment irnpugned is thus maintained. 10. As regards sentence, counsel for the applicant submits that the offence was committed on 23.4.1995 and sufficient time since then has rolled by; this is the first offence against the applicant and no previous criminal record is there against him and therefore, the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. This submission of the counsel for the applicant does not seem to be unreasonable. Accordingly, • the applicant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and pay fine of Rs. 3000 in stead of Rs. 1,000 as imposed by the Courts below. 11. Revision is thus partly allowed. Sd/- pritinkerD^aker Judge 1^:. 'V] / \Q