Criminal Appeal No. 568 of 2016. Case: Suraj Chourasia Vs State of Chhattisgarh. Chhattisgarh High Court

Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 568 of 2016
CounselFor Appellant: Vivek Shrivastava, Advocate and For Respondents: Neeraj Sharma, Dy. Govt. Advocate
JudgesAnil Kumar Shukla, J.
IssueCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 313, 437A; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 9; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 328, 379
Judgement DateMarch 30, 2017
CourtChhattisgarh High Court


Anil Kumar Shukla, J.

  1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.09.2012 passed by Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Case No. 68/2012, whereby learned Six Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 328 and 379 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and rigorous imprisonment for 6 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulations, respectively with a direction to run the sentences concurrently.

  2. As per case of the prosecution, on 06.08.2010 complainant Meenakshi Chadda W/o. Vipul Ajmani was going to Gwalior from Sambalpur in Hirakund Express in coach No. A-1 at berth No. 10. During the journey at Bilaspur Railway Station, the appellant offered her milk mixed with intoxicated pills and after drinking the said milk the complainant became unconscious and after taking advantage of her condition the appellant stolen her gold mangalsutra, two golden rings, two diamond rings, four golden bangles, one necklace and cash of Rs. 7,000/- from her. The complainant lodged a written complaint (Ex. P-1) in Police Station G.R.P. Gwalior on which the FIR (Ex. P-2) was registered against unknown person under Crime No. 9/10 under Sections 328 and 379 IPC. The incident had happened at Bilaspur Railway Station, therefore, the case of the complainant was transferred from Police Station G.R.P. Gwalior to Police Station G.R.P. Bilaspur and on receipt of the case on transfer to Police Station G.R.P. Bilaspur registered a case against the unknown person under Crime No. 94/10 under Sections 328 and 379 IPC and investigated into the matter. During the investigation, on the memorandum statement of the appellant stolen jewellery in form of gold melted by him was recovered vide Ex. P-19. Statements of witnesses were recorded and the appellant was arrested. Identification parade of the appellant was conducted vide Ex. P-4.

  3. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court of Special Railway Magistrate, Bilaspur, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Session, Bilaspur, from where it was received on transfer by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned.

  4. Statements of complainant Meenakshi Chhadda (PW-1), Pradeep Kumar Soni (PW-2), Assistant Sub-Inspector, GRP, Gwalior, Ram Naresh Sharma (PW-3), Assistant Sub-Inspector, GRP Raigarh Ram Rao Kalamkar (PW-4), Sub-Inspector GRP, Bilaspur K.C. De (PW-5), Station House Officer Police Station Kamlanagar, Bhopal, Rajendra Singh (PW-6), Dr. C.P. Bansal (PW-7), Tahsildar Ashutosh Sharma (PW-8) were recorded in the Court below. Statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial Court, after hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above.

  5. Shri Vivek Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court is contrary to the facts and the material available on record. Learned counsel further argued that the seizure witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel further argued that the test identification parade of the appellant has not been conducted by the prosecution in the manner as prescribed under the law. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the prosecution has failed to bring any documentary evidence like railway ticket on record suggesting that on the alleged day the appellant was traveling in the said train. Learned counsel further argued that even if the prosecution case is taken on its face value, then also various persons were traveling in the compartment of the said train and, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant is the only person who has committed the crime. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case, therefore...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT