Bit "S0~7 •2-&0 •Spvs- •gj'ww—jyA ».,^..,,,, f^ E^ ll-S. tiDP^RABLEIBGHCOtStr OFXajiCATURE AT BMAiiPUR •^i f^'^f\ Q'.A.No.:-227/99 A.P^5S S^iiSI"^ ^- jiajail} F^l.uiu ^ .Bacnai ^ gsyan^jiuwO i.iaripr^a Dubev aaetl 22 ws. R/o Birkoaa t^.S. S'3Tlill,i'i:05 UlyiX, ISl.idlSUr , l^S|J01'5Ll<?iit.; State oi'C.G. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 227 of 1999. APPELLANT Padum alias Bachai alias Gajanand. VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh. Shri Abhay Tiwarj, counsel for appellant. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan PL for respondenVState. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (22.01.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.12.1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar in Sessions Trial No. 133/1996 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 398 of the Indian Penal code and f sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 8.3.1989 FIR (Ex. P-7) was lodged by Ramsingh Sen (PW-11) alleging that on 7.3.1989, near village Khokhli one unknown person had stopped him and at the point of knife snatched his watch and Rs. 10. Subsequently, upon investigation it was discovered that it was the accused/appellant who had committed the said offence and he was identified in the test identification parade vide Ex. P-7 conducted by Naib Tehsildar - Gyan singh (PW-7). 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 12 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused / appellant for the offence as mentioned abQve. 'F'r !T2^ 1 ^gSiS^55^;^ ^ \.j^y u 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including thejudgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of the impugned judgment and would confine his arguments only to the sentence part thereof. He submits that as the appellant has already remained injail for a period of 5 years, 09 months and 09 days and the incident is said to have taken place in th^' year 1989, it would be in the interest ofjustice if he may be sentenced to.the period already undergone by him. To this, Counsel for the respondent/State has no objection. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is hereby maintained. However, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. Pritinker Diwaker Judge w-