Samrath vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5206 MP

 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
                       Criminal Appeal No.3808/2019
                (Samrath S/o Bherulal Chohan Vs. State of M. P.)
                                     -1-

Indore, dated 08/09/2021

         Shri Abhay Saraswat, learned counsel for the appellant.

         Shri Sameer Verma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent /

State.

Heard on IA No.17184/2021 which is an application for urgent

hearing of the case. Keeping in view the reasons mentioned in the

application, the application for urgent hearing stands allowed and

disposed of.

Matter was listed for consideration of suspension application i.e.

IA.No.17183/2021. The acquisition against the appellant is that he had

snatched a bag from the complainant, which contained Rs.10,500/-.

The appellant has been convicted under Section 392 of the IPC and

has been sentenced to undergo 07 years rigorous imprisonment with

fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation in Sessions Trial No.147/2017

vide judgment dated 10/04/2019 by learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Badnagar, District Ujjain.

Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the appellant

has already completed more than half of the jail sentence awarded to

him and in fact he is in jail for a period of 04 years and 07 months.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this period of jail

incarceration be considered to be adequate in terms of the

imprisonment.

There has been no injury found on the person of complainant HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE Criminal Appeal No.3808/2019 (Samrath S/o Bherulal Chohan Vs. State of M. P.)

while the incident was committed. Ends of justice would be served if

the period already undergone be considered as the appropriate

punishment. It is verified that the appellant has in fact completed 04

years and 07 months in jail. There are criminal antecedents against

the appellant, however, the appellant has been acquitted in those

cases and the learned counsel for the appellant has filed judgments in

respect of those cases.

Heard learned counsel for the State.

Considered.

The conviction of the appellant under Section 392 of the IPC

has not been challenged on perusal of the evidence available on

record. The conviction is found to be appropriate. The sentence is

reduced from 07 years RI to the period already undergone i.e. 04

years and 07 months with no change in fine amount and default

stipulation.

The appeal stands allowed in part in terms of the quantum of

sentence and stands disposed of accordingly.

Certified copy as per rules.

(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE Tej

Digitally signed by TEJPRAKASH VYAS Date: 2021.09.08 17:26:36 -07'00'