Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY, JJ.
Shyam Kumar S/o Krit Kumar Barman – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1324 of 2016, Criminal Appeal No. 460 of 2015, Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 2014, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1008, 1047, 1149 of 2013
Decided On : 30-01-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 395, 397, 120B, 457, 412 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 161, 374, 313 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27, 65B, 114 – Arms Act – Section 25,27 – Power to examine the accused – Prosecution Witnesses – Learned 2nd Additional Session Judge since common question of law and fact are involved in all these appeals they have been clubbed together heard together and are being decided by this common judgment – Held, Learned trial Court in its judgment has not found plea of alibi to be proved plea of alibi raised on behalf of appellant vacillating and it has rightly been rejected by learned trial Court – Court have gone through evidence relating conspiracy – Court find that trial Court is absolutely justified in holding that charge of conspiracy is established – Court not find any infirmity in holding that charge of conspiracy is duly established – Appeal accordingly dismissed having no merit.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.
1. This batch of six criminal appeals under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. have been preferred by the six appellants namely Shyam Kumar (A-1), Virendra (A-2), Jwala Prasad (A-3), Devendra (A-4), Hemlal (A-5) and Suraj Kumar (A-6) against impugned judgment dated 25.09.2013 passed by learned 2nd Additional Session Judge, Balodabazar in Sessions Trial No. 02/13 and since common question of law and fact are involved in all these appeals, therefore, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. By impugned judgment dated 25.09.2013, the appellants/accused persons have been convicted and sentenced as under:
| Appellant/Accused | Conviction | Sentence |
| Shyam Kumar (A-1) | U/s 395 of IPC | R.I. for life with fine of Rs. 1000/- each in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months. |
| Virendra (A-2) | U/s 397 of IPC | R.I. for 10 years |
| Jwala Prasad (A-3) | U/s 120(B) of IPC | R.I. for life with fine of Rs. 1000/- each in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months. |
| Devendra (A-4) | ||
| Hemlal (A-5) | U/s 457 of IPC | R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs. 1000/- each in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months. |
| Suraj Kumar (A-6) | U/s 412 of IPC | R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine, additional S.I. for 6 months. |
| Shyam Kumar (A-1) | U/s 25 of Arms Act | R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs. 200/- each in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 2 months. |
| Devendra (A-4) |
3. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on the intervening night of 24-25.09.2012 at about 01:30 A.M. the appellants herein, with common object and conspiracy of committing dacoity, trespassed into the house of Rajeev Dadsena (PW-1) armed with lethal weapons and in furtherance of their common intention, they committed dacoity and thereby, committed the aforesaid offences.
4. Further case of the prosecution is that complainant Rajeev Dadsena (PW-1), who was working as a Clerk in District Cooperative Bank, Bhatgaon, had constructed his house at Sindhichua Road, Bhatgaon within the ambit of Police Station Bilaigarh three years prior to the date of the incident and was residing in the said house along with his wife Nirupama Dadsena (PW-4), his mother Laxmi Devi (PW-3) and niece Poonam (PW-18). On 25.09.2012, the complainant had gone to his office and came back to his house around 6-6:30 PM and thereafter, at around 10:30 P.M. he along with his wife (PW-4) and their kids was sleeping in one room and his mother (PW-3) along with the kids of his elder brother were sleeping in another room near the kitchen and the main door of the house was locked from inside and the door of the house was latched from inside. At around 01:30 AM, complainant's wife Nirupama Dadsena (PW-4) saw torch light and noticed that the curtains of the door were opened upon which she informed the complainant Rajeev Dadsena (PW-1), who went out of the room and saw that kitchen door was opened. When he tried to shut the door of the kitchen, suddenly three persons entered his bedroom and caught hold of his wife (PW-4) and pressed her mouth. The complainant (PW-1) pushed one person aside, but he hit the complainant near his right ear with a sharp object. Thereafter, two persons caught hold of the complainant-Rajeev Dadsena (PW-1) and three persons caught hold of his wife-Nirupama Dadsena (PW-4) and took both of them to their mother's bedroom and tied them with blouse, banyan, bedsheet, etc. Thereafter, the appellants/ accused persons threatened them with life of their child and asked for the key of almirah to take jewellery and cash. Complainant's mother Laxmi Devi (PW-3) told them to take whatever they wanted but t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
