@ @ Singie Bench BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL No. %& 2009 Abhay Soni S/o Rajkumar Soni, Aged about 3O years, Occupation Business R/o Purani Basti Lohar Para, Raipur C. G. APPELLANT: State of Chhattisgarh , Through Police Station Basantpur, Tehsil & District Rajnandgaon, C.G. RESPONDENT: MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2! OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND CONVICTION DATED 24/11/2009V M‘I‘, 4 w. < Mm at A .uw Lud‘ -D HGH I COURT OF CHATTA HISGRH AT BSPUR ILA (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 864 of 2009 Abhay Soni APPELLANT VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh Dr. Rajesh Pandey counsel for the appellant Shri Neeraj Mehta P'L for the respondent/Staie CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE JwU D G M E N T ‘ (17.02.2011) This appeal is directed against the judgment and ’orde’r dated 24 11 2009 passed by the Additional Sessmns Judge (FTC), Rajnandgaon In SeSSIons Tnal No. 35/2009 conwctmg the accused/appellant under Section 413 of the Indian Pehval’Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay fine of Rs.v2000, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 27.11.2008 at about 7.50 p.m. FIR Ex. P—3 was lodged by the complainant namely Smt. Anita Singh (PW—5) alleging that on that day at about 6.45 p.m. when she was near the hospital, one unknown person had stopped her and snatched the golden chain worth Rs. 12,000 and then he ran away on the motorcycle of the other accused. Based 0n this report, offence under Section 392 IPC was registered against the unknown person. After investigation, challan was filed by the police on 24.3.2009 against three accused persons under Sections 392 and 412 IPC. The only allegation against the present appellant is that he had purchased the golden chain of the complainant weighing 16.400 grams knowing the same to be the looted property. 3. So as to hold the accused persons guilty, prosecution has examined 10 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the \ . .h, accused persons were also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges Ieveiled against them and pleaded their innocence and faise implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has acquitted accused Dilip of the charge u/s 392 IPC but convicted accused Umendra for the said offence. Likewise, the present appellant has been convicted by the Court below under Section 413 IPC and sentenced to the term indicated above. -2- Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 5. 6 . According to the counsel for the accused/appellant though there is no evidence available on record to show that the accused/appellant was in the habit of dealing in stolen property nor a eparate charge under section 413 IPC was framed against him yet’ he has been convicted by the Court below for that offence. He however submits that as the appellant is in jail since 24.11.2009 i.e. for about one year and five months, he is not pressing this appeal on merits and would make a limited prayer that the sentence imposed on him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Counsel for the respondent/State however supports the judgment impugned convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant as mentioned above. In aforesaid view of the matter, conviction part of the judgment impugned is maintained. However, keeping in view the fact that the ccused/appellant has already remained in jail for about one year and five months and that nothing has been brought on record by the prosecution that the accused/appellant was in the habit of dealing in stolen property, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest ofjustice if the sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Order accordingly. Accused/appellant be set free at once if not required in any other Case. 8. Appeal thus partly allowed. 7. 7/ Sd/— ‘ Pritinker Diwaker ' l Judge @ s a