Advocates:
['SHAKTI RAJ SINHA', '', 'NISHI KANT SINHA', 'A G']

1

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Reserved for Judgment on :28/02/2019

Judgment delivered on : 08/03/2019

CRA No. 576 of 2015

•

Satish Singh S/o Rama Shankar, Aged About 23 Years, Occupation-

Private Service, R/o Lalganj, P.S. Lalganj, District Mirzapur, U.P., Uttar

Pradesh

---- Appellant

Versus

•

State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Ambikapur,

District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent

For Appellant : Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate.

For Respondent/State: Shri Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant

CAV Judgment

08/03/2019

1.

This appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 25-04-2015

passed in Sessions Trial No.12/2014 by the Second Additional

Sessions Judge, Surguja, Ambikapur, C.G. convicting the appellant

under Section 392, 307(3 times) of the IPC & Sections 25 & 27 of

Arms Act and sentencing him with R.I. for 10 years, R.I. for 10-10

years, R.I. for 4 & 4 years along with fine Rs.500/-, Rs.500/- -

Rs.500/- (total Rs.1500/-) and Rs.500/- & Rs.500/- (total Rs.1000/-)

respectively with default stipulations and direction that all the jail

sentences shall run concurrently.

2.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is this, that on 09-10-2013 at

about 08:15 P.M. complainant Megha Gupta (PW-4) was walking on

the street to her home when the appellant along with deceased

2

Gourav Seth came on a motorcycle and snatched the gold chain

worn by Megha Gupta (PW-4) and then he made his escape.

Megha Gupta (PW-4) and others raised alarm, hearing which Vishal

Gupta (PW-2) and Ratan Prasad Gupta (PW-3) tried to chase and

stop the motorcycle of the appellant, who fell down because of

traffic. Then the appellant while running away from the spot he took

out a firearm and shot at Vishal @ Mikku Gupta (PW-2) causing

injury on his right forearm and when Ratan Prasad Gupta (PW-3)

tried to catch hold of him, the fire was also opened on him by the

appellant who got shot on his leg, then, the appellant also fired shot

on Dhananjay Bariyar (PW-8). Members of public caught hold of the

appellant on the spot. FIR (Ex.-P/4) was lodged on the spot on the

information given by Vishal Gupta (PW-2) and the appellant was

arrested on the spot. Memorandum statement Ex.-P/1 was recorded

and at the instance of the appellant a country-made firearm and

cartridges recovered and seized from spot vide Ex.-P/2. The

statement of witnesses were recorded. The injured victims were

sent for medical examination and treatment. The seized firearm was

sent for examination by armorer. After completion of the

investigation charge sheet was filed.

3.

The appellant was charged with offence under Sections 120 read

with 392 of the IPC and Sections 25 of Arms Act, to which the

appellant denied and prayed for trial.

4.

On completion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was

examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which he denied all the

incriminating evidence against him, pleaded innocence and false

3

implication. No witness was examined in defence.

5.

On completion of the trial, the impugned judgment has been passed in

which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as

aforementioned.

6.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there is

question of the identity of the appellant, as no test identification

parade was conducted in the investigation. After seeing the

appellant on the spot, the appellant has been directly identified in

the dock of the Court. Vishal Gupta (PW-2) is one of the victims who

is not reliable witness. Another witness of the spot Ratan Prasad

Gupta (PW-3) has not clearly supported the prosecution case,

because of which he was declared hostile. It has been admitted by

Vishal Gupta (PW-2) in his cross-examination that he had seen the

appellant in the police station and he has also seen his photo

published in the newspaper and thereafter he has identified hi