^S^SS^W^ff- -atetes^ Slp^te'Bench IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL No. .<7>^ /2009. APPELLANTS (IN JAIL) : 1) Ramdhari, S/ o. Nand Kumar, aged about 22 years, Mazdoori, R/o. Village Damoda, Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg (C.G.) ^^ y\ ^'"^ .^^^ .••"".^\^' ^ ^%.^' \^/^^' 2) Ramkumar, S/o. Chandar Pardhi, aged about 22 years, Mazdoori, R/o. Village Achholi, Police Station Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.) 3) Jitendra, S/o. Nand Kumar Pardhi, aged about 18 years, Mazdoori, R/o. Village Damoda, Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg (C.G.) 4) Dilip, S/o. Chandar Pardhi, aged about 28 years, Mazdoori, R/o. Jhalam, Police Station Kharsara, District Durg (C.G.) V E RSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh, Through P. S. Gendatola, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C. G.) y'6'^^' ^) CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S. 374 (2) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE HIGM COIIRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr, ^ustice Prltliiker Dlwsiicer) Cug3rsMai^PA1iA^ffi.^26j|tJfiga APPELLANT Ravl Kumar @ Phytanu VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chliattlsgarh Criminai AoDeal No. 349 of 2009 APPELLANTS Ramdhari and others VERSUS RESPONOENT State of Chhattisgarh Shri Jltendra Gupta, counsei for the appeilants. Smt. Smita Ghai, PL for the State. CRINZNAL APPEALS UNDER SECTION 374 f 21 OF THE CGDE GF CRIN2NAL PROCiStyBI^ JJ.LO^MEJMLT (09.03.2011) Since the aforementtoned two appeais arise out of the same judgment dated 28.02.2009 passed by Addjtional Sessions Judge (F.T.C),, Rajnandgoan ln Sessions Tnal No. 105/2008, they are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appeilants have been convicted under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay fine of Rs. 100 on each count/ in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for ten days. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that on 02.07.2008 at about 1 O'clock in the night when the Station House Officer -^•.: ^k '.-^ ]/ Yadumani Siddar was returnlng after patrolling/ received information that near viliage Bhuj^tkata certain persons were sjttina with arms and making preparation for commissjon or dacoity. Based on this Information/ the Investigating Officer went to the spot. surrounded the appeliants, made enquiry and after satisfaction that the accused/appellants were making preparation for commission of dacoity^ the FIR Ex.P- 11 was registered aaainst tne accused/appellants for the offence under Sectjons 399 and 402 of IPC and arter completion of investigatjon, Challan was filed against them on 02.08.2008. 4. So as to hotd the accused/appetlants gui!ty.. prosecution has examined 03 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellants were also recorded under sectlon 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denled the charges leveiled against them and pleaded thelr innocence and faise impilcation in the case. 5. After hearing tne parties the triat Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appeliants as mentioned above. 6, Counsel for the appeliants submits that he is no?- pressing the two appeals as far as they reiate to conviction part of the impugned judgment and wouid confine his argument to the sentence part thereof oniy. He submits that the appellarTt Ravi Kumar is in jail for two years and seven months whereas the remaining appellants are in jail for 2 years and eight months, that the appeltants tiave been convicted oniyon the basis of the statement of Yadumani Siddar (PW-3) tnat nas not been supported by any other witnesses and all the appeliants are young men and their further detention in jail may turn them into hardened criminai and in these circumstances it wouid be in the interest of T T '-..^/ (^ ..-^'""-% \^ hN» justice if the sentence imposed on them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. Lastly it has been argued that the fine amount may be suitably enhanced. 7. The State counsel, opposing the submissions as made by the counsel for the appeliants, submits that from paragraph-27 of the judgment it is clear that as many as four cases are pending against the accused/appetlants and therefore no lenjency can be shown to them, 8. Considenng the totality of the case, convjctlon part of the impugned judgment is maintained but lookjng to the facts and drcumstances of the case^ in particutar.. that the appeSlant Ravi Kumar is in jail for two years and seven months whereas the remalning appellants are in jail for 2 years and eight months and all the appeliants are young men/ Jail sentence imposed on them is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years from that of 5 years as has been done by the Court below. However^ in lieu thereof/ the appellants are directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 each in addition to the fine amount awarded by the trial Court. The appellants would get the advantage of this judgment/ if they deposit the fine amount jmposed on them by this Court as well as by the trial Court. 9. Appeal thus partly succeeds. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge