INTHE HIGH_COURT OF CHMATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.^C / 2009 APPELLANT (In the custody) '» w- ^&^- y:"y^ 'i'f^'y "..^" Versus SB v~: ^— ^S-, .ifj3K:i^ S:A:^->I :Ravi Kumar @ Phutanu lo BahurSingh Pardhi, Lgbourer ffl bou(- - %.z 'r^i, i^, 'l^' R/o- village Ganyari, P.S- Utaie Dist- Durg (C.G.) RESPONDENT :State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S/Outpost- Gendatola, Dist- Rajnandgoan (C.G.) MEMORANDUIV1 OF APPEAL U/S 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIIVIINAL PROCEDURE. J!J'v^ '?v^T u iT: 's'i-a® Shri Jitendra Gupta, counsel for the appellants. Smt. Smita Ghai, PL for fche State. l!»: '»-,s^t ;^T" ^^—( ^F afi ,•'ff'fli. n <? ? !?«^»*bi^^..^?N19^!i'SI'fct'?1 (OS.03.2011) Since the aforementioned two appsais arise out of the same ludament dated 28.02.2009 passed by Addjtionat Sessions Judge (F.T.C), Rajnancigoan in SessiQns Trial No, ;, thev' are djsoosed of bv this common ludament, '°? The appellants have been convjcted under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC and sentenced each of riaorous Imprisonment for fsve years and pa' on each co.unt, in derault of payiTient of underao slmDle imprjsonment for tsn ctays. to undergo fins of Rs. 100 fine to further 3. ~ Facts' of the case in brief are that on 02.07.2008 at about 1 O'clock in the niaht when the Statson House Offlcer .*' 11 Yadumani Siddar was returning after patrolling, received information that near visiage Bhujalkala certain persons were sittlng with arms and making preparation for commisslon of dacolty. Based on thjs information, the investiaating Offjcer went to the spot, surrounded the appeliants, made enquiry and after satisfaction th3t the accusea./appellants were making preparation for commission of dacoity, tne FIR Ex.P- 11 was registered against the accused/appellants for the offence under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC and after completlon of investigation, Chailan was filed aaainst them on 02.08.2008. 4. has examined 03 o as to ho!d the accused/appeilants gui!ty, prosecution itnssses in support of Its case. Statement )eltants were also recorded under section Criminai procedure In which they denied aaalnst them and pleaded their innocence of the accused./app 313 of the Code the charges ieveiis and false impilcatj lis-stswssas 5. After hearing tde parties the triat Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appeHants as mentioned above. 6, Counsel ror the appeliants submits that he js not pressing the two appeals as far as they relats to conviction part of the impuqned judament and woufd confine hls argument to the sentence part thereof on!y. He submits that the appeilant Ravi Kumar is in jail for two years and seven months whereas the remalnlng appellants are in iail for 2 vears and eiqht months, that the appellants have been convscted only on the basis of the statement of Yadumani Siddar (PW-3) that has not been supported bv anv other witnesses and atl the appetiants are young men and their 1'urther detention in lall may turn them into hardened crjmlnal and in these circumstances it would be in the interest of -^K^.i'sy justice If the sentence imposed on them is reduced to the periQd already undergone by them. Lastly it has been argued that the fine amount may be suitably enhanced, 7. Th6 State counsei, opposing the submissions as made by the counsel for tne appeSSants, submits that from paragraph-27 of the judgment it is clear that as many as four cases are pending against the accused/appeliants and therefore no leniency can be shown to them, 8. Cons.idering the totality of the case, convjction part of the jmpugned judgment is maintamed but looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, In partjcular,. that the appellant Ravj Kumar is in jail for two years and seven months whereas the remaining appellants are in jail for 2 years and eight months and all the appellants are young men, Jail sentence imposed on them is reduced to riaorous imprisonment for 3 years From ttiat of 5 years as has been done by the Court beiow. However, In lieu thereof, the appeitants are directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1..000 each in addition to the flne amount awarded by the triat Court. The appelSants would get the advantage of this judgme.nt, sf they deposst the fi.ne amount imposed on them by thls Court as well as by the triaS Court. 9. Appea! thus partly succeeds. Sd/- Pririnker Diwaker ^e