2026:CGHC:20609 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 20 of 2008 Digambar Lal Satnami S/o Paras Ram Satnami, aged about 30 years, Occupation – Labour, R/o Village Parasadeeh, P.S.-Jaijaipur, Distt.-

Janjgir-Champa, C.G.

... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Kotra Road, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (CG)

... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr. Kanhaiya Ram Yadav, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board (04^th May, 2026)

The appellant in this appeal calls in question the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.12.2007 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raigarh in ST No.52/2006 whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:

Conviction Sentence Under Section 398 of Indian Penal RI for 07 years Code.

Under Section 427 of Indian Penal RI for 02 years Code.

Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.11.2005 complainant Peela Dau, Incharge Branch Manager of Rural Bank, Branch-Nandeli, was working in the bank and at that time cashier Jitendra Dubey, Manoj Shrivastava and messenger Ganesh Ram Sidar were also on duty. At around 1.30 pm, three persons entered the bank and closed the door and window of the bank. They demanded money on the point of country made pistol and looted the money kept in the drawer of the cash counter. They confined them in the record room. At that time, postman Uttara Kumar arrived there and he was also confined in the said room. Thereafter, the accused persons fled from there on motorcycle. At the time of dacoity, three other dacoits were standing outside. The accused persons looted Rs.1,11,520/-, one calculator and stapler. On report being lodged by Peela Dau Sidar, offence under Section 395 of IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act was registered. After completing usual investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused persons showing the co-accused Suraj Sharma absconding.

03. Learned trial Court framed charges under Section 398, 398/34 & 427 of IPC, Section 25(1)(A) & 27 of the Arms Act against the accused persons which were abjured by them and they prayed for trial. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 17 witnesses in all. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court while acquitting the co-accused of all the charges and the appellant of the charges under the Arms Act, convicted the appellant u/s 398 and 427 of IPC and sentenced as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.

Hence this appeal.

05. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. In this case, the identification of the accused/appellant is doubtful. From the deposition of the witnesses it is clear that they identified the appellant on the basis of his photograph published in the newspaper. PW-10 Neelam Toppo, Naib Tehsildar, admits that when he carried out the written proceedings at Kotara Road Police Station, the suspected persons were present in the lock-up room of the Kotara Road Police Station and the persons brought for identification and the identifying witnesses were also present in the police station. In this case, PW-3 Vijay Kumar and PW-8 Manuram Shrivas, witnesses to seizure, have not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. He submits that on the same set of evidence, the other co-accused persons have been acquitted of all the charges by learned trial Court. From the evidence on record it is clear that test identification parade has not been conducted in accordance with law. Nothing