Chattisgarh High Court
Ram Prasad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 July, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2025:CGHC:30298
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Judgment reserved on : 02-04-2025
Judgment delivered on : 03-07-2025
CRA No. 31 of 2008
Ram Prasad, S/o Goshai Ram Munda, aged 22 years, Occupation-
Agriculture, R/o Village-Gutree, Thana-Jashpur, Distt. Jashpur (CG)
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, P.S. - Jashpur, Distt.
Jashpur (CG)
... Respondent
For Appellant : Ms. Vidhi Matlani, Advocate on behalf of Mr.
Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Govt. Advocate.
Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J
CAV Judgment
The appellant in this appeal is challenging the legality and validity of
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.11.2007 passed
by Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur in ST No.66/2007 whereby the
appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 397 of Indian Penal RI for 07 years, fine of Rs.2000/- and
Code. in default thereof to suffer additional
imprisonment for 02 months.
Under Section 458 of Indian Penal RI for 07 years, fine of Rs.2000/- and
Code. in default thereof to suffer additional
2
imprisonment for 02 months.
Under Section 25 & 27 of the Arms RI for 01 year, fine of Rs.1000/- and
Act. in default thereof to suffer additional
RI for 01 month.
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 4.2.2007 at around 8 pm
when complainant Kamlesh Ram along with his family members was at his
residence, one Ramraj Rautiya knocked at the door and when sister of
Kamlesh Ram opened the door, Ramraj came inside and informed that party
members have come to arrange a meeting in the village. Thereafter, father of
the complainant went with Ramraj. However, after some time, two boys came
with father of the complainant and claimed themselves to be party members.
One of the boys was holding a country made pistol and another sword. These
boys asked for country made pistol from the complainant’s father, on which
he replied that it is deposited in the police station. Then one boy who was
carrying country made pistol pointed pistol at the complainant and looted
Rs.4000/- kept in the chest and also threatened his father and sister of life.
While the accused persons were running away from there, the complainant,
his brother Rajesh and other villagers chased them and caught one of them,
snatched his sword and beat him. However, he escaped from their clutches
and ran towards the jungle by taking advantage of darkness. On the
information of complainant, Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/1 was registered and based
on it, FIR (Ex.P/10) was registered. During investigation, statements of the
complainant, Ramprasad and other persons were recorded. Spot map Ex.P/6
was prepared. From some distance ahead of the place of occurrence, one
leather shoes, country made pistol, 315 bore empty cartridge and sword were
seized. The seized pistol was sent for examination and report Ex.P/11 was
3
obtained. The accused persons were arrested. They were subjected to
medical examination in District Hospital, Jashpur and medical reports
Ex.P/13, P/8, P/12 & P/7 were obtained. After completion of necessary
investigation, charge sheet under Sections 458, 392, 34, 394, 397, 398 of
IPC and Section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act was filed against the accused
persons.
03. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 458, 397 of IPC and
Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act against the accused which were abjured by
them and they prayed for trial. In order to substantiate its case the
prosecution examined 12 witnesses. 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. However, no witness was examined by him
in defence.
04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral
and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court while acquitting
accused Budhnath of all the charges by giving him benefit of doubt, convicted
and sentenced the accused/appellant and accused Deepak Kujur as
mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal.
05. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment
is contrary to law and material available on record. Learned trial court ought
to have appreciated the fact that there are several omission and contradiction
in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Even no test identification
parade has been conducted in this case whereas it is the case of the
prosecution itself that at the time of incident there was no proper source of
light. PW-1 Kamlesh Ram and PW-6 Krishna have not supported the
4
prosecution case and seizure memo was signed by the witnesses at the
police station. Learned trial Court ought to have appreciated the fact that no
weapon was seized from the present appellant. Learned trial Court
proceeded merely on the basis of conjecture and surmises and recorded
findings of guilt against the appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment is
liable to be set aside and the appellant deserves to be acquitted of all the
charges.
06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the
contention of the appellant submits that the learned trial Court upon minute
appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and
sentenced by the appellant by the impugned judgment which calls for no
interference by this Court. He further submits that this Court vide judgment
dated 18.6.2020 passed in CRA No.135/2008 filed by the similarly situated
co-accused Deepak Kujur has already dismissed it and therefore, the present
appeal being without any substance is also liable to be dismissed.
07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
08. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that there were total
three accused who were charged under under Sections under Sections 458,
397 of IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act. Learned trial Court while
acquitting accused Budhnath of all the charges, convicted and sentenced the
present appellant under Sections 397, 458 of IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of
the Arms Act.
09. PW-1 Kamlesh Ram, complainant, states that on the date of incident
two dacoits entered his house, they claimed themselves to be naxalites, were
5
holding sword and pistol, they demanded money and licensed gun from his
father and looted Rs.4000/- from the box. He identified accused Deepak
Kujur and Ramprasad as perpetrator of the crime. He states that the villagers
caught hold of accused Deepak Kujur whereas other two accused persons
had escaped. In cross-examination he admits that the police did not make
any seizure from accused Ramprasad before him. He also admits that he
knew Ramprasad since before.
10. PW-2 Ramprasad also identified accused Ramprasad and Deepak
Kujur. He states that accused Deepak Kujur was caught by the villagers but
he did not disclose the name of his other accomplices. In para 9 he admits
that on the date of incident accused Deepak was caught and on suspicion
they beat him brutally.
11. PW-3 Ramraj admits his signature on seizure memo Ex.P/4 whereby
pistol was seized from complainant Kamlesh Ram. As per seizure memo
Ex.P/2, one .315 bore empty cartridge was seized from accused Deepak
Kujur whereas no seizure was effected from accused Ramprasad.
12. Learned trial Court framed charge under Section 397 of IPC whereas
Section 397 of IPC deals with enhanced punishment only and it’s not a
substantive offence. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of
Kallu @ Ramkumar Vs. State of Madhay Pradesh, 1992 MPLJ 558
observed in para 11 of its judgment as under:
“11. Learned trial Judge has sentenced the accused persons
under sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code
separately. Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the
6enhanced punishment only. It is not a substantive offence. The
substantive offence may be robbery or dacoity. In this case, the
substantive offence as proved, is dacoity and, therefore, there
ought to have been only one sentence. It is a different matter
that the enhanced punishment could be inflicted with the aid of
section 397 of the Indian Penal Code.
Consequently, the appeal filed by accused Kallu alias
Ramkumar, Barelal and Sukhram is accepted. They are
acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They are on
ball. Their ball-bonds are discharged.
The appeal of accused-appellants Gabbar allas Goverdhan
and Chhotu alias Dayaram is dismissed and sentence passed
against them under section 395 read with section 397 of the
Indian Penal Code, i.e., rigorous imprisonment for seven years,
is maintained. Appellant No. 1 Gabbar alias Goverdhan is in jail.
He be informed with the result of this appeal accordingly.
Appellant Chhotu alias Dayaram is on bail. He is directed to
appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seoni, on 11-12-
1991 for serving out the remaining period of sentence.”
13. In view of the above, learned trial Court was not justified in holding the
appellant guilty under Section 397 of IPC which is not a substantive offence
but only deals with enhanced punishment and looking to the overall evidence,
oral and documentary, available on record and the manner in which the
offence is committed, the learned trial Court ought to have convicted him
under Section 392 of IPC for commission of robbery. So far as offences under
Section 458 of IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act are concerned, in
view of the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses, the manner in
which the crime was committed and recovery of the weapons was effected,
conviction of the accused/appellant under these sections cannot be faulted
with.
7
14. As regards the quantum of sentence, in the totality of facts and
circumstances, the fact that the incident took place in the year 2007; the
appeal is pending since 2008, age of the appellant at the relevant time i.e. 22
years; he was on bail during trial as also during pendency of this appeal and
did not misuse the liberty granted to him; he has no criminal antecedents and
has remained in jail for more than a year (394 days), this Court is of the
opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in sending him back to jail at
this stage and the ends of justice would be met if under Sections 458 and 392
of IPC, he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him with fine
amount.
15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of the appellant
under Section 458 of IPC and Section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act is hereby
affirmed. However, his conviction under Section 397 of IPC is altered to
Section 392 of IPC. While maintaining sentence under Sections 25 & 27 of
the Act, his jail sentence under Sections 458 and 392 of IPC is reduced to the
period already undergone by him. The fine imposed by trial Court u/s 458 of
IPC with default sentence shall remain intact. The appellant shall also pay
fine of Rs.2000/- u/s 392 of IPC and in default shall undergo additional RI for
two months. The fine amount already deposited by the appellant shall be
adjusted accordingly.
The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall
remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provisions
of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023.
Sd/
(Rajani Dubey)
MOHD by
Digitally signed
MOHD
Judge
AKHTAR KHAN
AKHTAR Date:
2025.07.03
KHAN 16:36:54
+0530Khan