Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raja vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 December, 2022
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1
Cr.R. No.623/2014
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 12th OF DECEMBER, 2022
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 623 of 2014
BETWEEN:-
RAJA S/O SHAHJAD KHAN, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
LABOUR VILLAGE CHAKALDI P.S. RAHTI, DISTRICT-SEHORE,
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VIKAS YADAV, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER THRU.
P.S. KHATEGAON, DISTRICT-DEWAS, (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT/STATE
(BY SHRI R.S. SURYAVANSHI, PANEL LAWYER )
This application coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble Shri
Justice Satyendra Kumar Singh passed the following:
ORDER
Satyendra Kumar Singh, J.,
1. This criminal revision u/S 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. has been
preferred against the judgment dated 31.05.2014, passed by the Court
of Additional Sessions Judge, Khategaon, District Dewas in
Criminal Appeal No.216/2013, whereby the judgment dated
27.08.2013 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Khategaon, District Dewas in Criminal Case No.573/2012 convicting
Cr.R. No.623/2014
and sentencing the petitioner for the offence punishable u/S 411 of
IPC, was partly allowed. Petitioner's conviction was affirmed but the
sentence awarded to him was reduced from one year RI to 6 months
RI with fine of Rs.200/-.
2. Prosecution story, in brief is as follows :-
In the intervening night of 12.08.2012-13.08.2012,
complainant Mahesh parked his Hero Honda Passion Pro Motorcycle
bearing registration No.MP-47-MC-0455 in front of his house
situated at village-Deepgaon. Co-accused Shivram and Rahul stolen
his aforesaid motorcycle and thereafter sold the same to the present
petitioner, who knowingly purchased the same from the co-accused
persons. Co-accused persons were arrested and on the basis of their
disclosure statement, stolen motorcycle was seized from the
possession of the petitioner. After completion of investigation,
charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and co-accused persons.
Learned Trial Court, after conclusion of trial, convicted the petitioner
for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC and sentenced
for RI of 01 year with fine amounting Rs.200/-. petitioner filed
Criminal Appeal bearing No.216/2013 before the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge, Khategaon, District Dewas, which was partly
allowed vide impugned judgment dated 31.05.2014 and reduced the
sentence from one year to six months.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per
prosecution case itself, the motorcycle bearing registration No.MP-
47-MC-0455 was said to be seized from the possession of the
petitioner after about one and a half months of the incident. He
further submits that co-accused persons were friend of the petitioner
Cr.R. No.623/2014
and they gave the aforesaid motorcycle to the petitioner to keep the
same. petitioner was not aware about the fact that the aforesaid
motorcycle was stolen property. There is nothing on record which
shows that he was aware about the fact that the same was stolen
property. He submits that admittedly incident took place in the year
2012 and since then petitioner is facing trial. Petitioner has already
suffered about 26 days incarceration out of six months sentenced
awarded to him. In view of the above, keeping in mind the nature of
allegations alleged against the petitioner and also the period of custody
already suffered by him, the period of his jail sentence be reduced to
the period which he has already undergone.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State has
opposed the prayer while supporting the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence submits that it is apparent from the
record that the stolen motorcycle was seized from the possession of
the petitioner and he has not given any explanation as to why or from
where he received the same. Learned Trial Court has not committed
any error in convicting him for the offence punishable under Section
411 of IPC. Therefore, confirming the impugned judgement of
conviction and order of sentence, the revision filed by the petitioner
may be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
record.
6. From the statement of complainant Mahesh (PW-1) and FIR
(Ex.P-1) lodged by him, it is apparent that in the intervening night of
12.08.2012-13.08.2012, he has parked his Hero Honda Passion Pro
Motorcycle bearing registration No.MP-47-MC-0455 in front of his
Cr.R. No.623/2014
house situated in village-Deepgaon from where it was stolen.
Although, seizure witnesses Kishore (PW-3) and Bharat (PW-4) have
not supported the prosecution case and have turned hostile, but ASI
J.S. Parmar (PW-7) specifically deposed that after the incident, he
recorded the disclosure statement of co-accused Shivram and Rahul
vide Ex.P-5 and P-6 respectively; and thereafter on the basis of
which on their instance, seized the stolen motorcycle from the
possession of the petitioner as per seizure memo (Ex.P-4). There is
nothing material on record, on the basis of which his aforesaid
statement can be disbelieved or doubted. Petitioner has not explained
as to how, he got the possession of the aforesaid vehicle. In view of
the aforesaid, learned Trial Court has not committed any error in
convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section
411 of IPC.
7. So far as, the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner for
the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC is concerned, since
vide impugned judgment dated 31.05.2014, passed by the Appellate
Court i.e., Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Khategaon, District
Dewas, the sentence awarded to the co-accused persons have already
been reduced to the period undergone by them. So keeping in view
the fact that petitioner have suffered about 26 days incarceration, this
Court is of the considered view that ends of justice would be served, if
the jail sentence awarded to the petitioner for the offence punishable
under Section 411 of IPC is also reduced to the period already
undergone by him.
8. Consequently, this criminal revision is allowed in part. The
conviction of the petitioner passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by
Cr.R. No.623/2014
the appellate Court under Section 411 of IPC is maintained. But, the
sentence awarded to him for the aforesaid offence is set aside and
instead thereof, the petitioner is sentenced to the period already
undergone by him in jail i.e. 26 days.
9. With the aforesaid, the criminal revision is disposed of finally.
10. If petitioner is in jail, he be set at liberty if not required in any
other case.
The Registry is directed to send back the trial Court record
forthwith alongwith the copy of this judgment. Let a copy of this
order be also sent to the concerned jail authorities for its speedy
compliance and necessary action.
(Satyendra Kumar Singh)
Judge
SJ/-
VIBHA Digitally signed by VIBHA PACHORI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH INDORE, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PACH
PRADESH BENCH INDORE, postalCode=452001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=63ade6a8efe1a32216bb40cba34e4ccadbecc
a47ba9fb326339dcb3a0aa8324a,
pseudonym=FBDB537CFA09A12C710F57965EBF546
A4C1B4C85,
serialNumber=ECF1C4B9939647F806353FB8EEFB2CF
ORI
CA8D6FDAF8339ACC3728BC3A5D1ECA843,
cn=VIBHA PACHORI
Date: 2022.12.14 16:16:12 +05'30'
