On 30th September 2020 the High court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Garju Ram v. the State of Chhattisgarh comprising of a single Bench of Justice Arvind Singh Chandel, held that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the Appellant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
Factual Background
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur wherein, the Appellant has been convicted under Section 395 of IPC, under Section 458 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively with default stipulation.
According to the case of the prosecution, with full preparation of committing dacoit, the present Appellant and other co-accused person entered the house of the complainant, they gave the threat to kill all family members of the complainant, looted ornaments of Gold and Silver, and some cash. The matter was reported by the complainant. After completion of the investigation, initially, a charge-sheet was filed against the co-accused persons. By declaring absconded to the present Appellant, aforesaid co-accused persons were convicted. Thereafter, the present Appellant was arrested. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed by the police. To robe the Appellant in the crime-in-question prosecution examined as many as total 23 witnesses. In the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the Appellant pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter, however, no defense witness was examined by the Appellant. After completion of the trial, Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned in Para 01 of this judgment. Hence this appeal.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant
Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that she does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines her argument to the sentence part only. She further submits that out of 10 years of jail sentence the Appellant has undergone about 09 years, he has no criminal antecedent and he is facing the lis since 2007. She lastly submits that the Appellant is in jail since 25.04.2011, therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the Appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
Submissions on behalf of the respondent
On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment.
Court Analysis
Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering that out of a total jail sentence of 10 years of jail sentence the Appellant has undergone about 09 years, he is facing the lis since 2007 and there is no criminal antecedent against him, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the Appellant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
Judgment
Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the Appellant under the aforementioned section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is affirmed.
Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.
0 Comments