Sanjay @ Sanju @ Kalu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4168 MP

                                    1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT
                           JABALPUR
                              BEFORE
     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE NANDITA DUBEY
           CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2756/2012

     Between:-
1.   SANJAY @ SANJU @ KALU S/O RAJU BALAI ,
     AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O VILL.SONGIR
     P.S. PANDHANA, DISTRICT KHANDWA,
     AT PRESENT KAMAL BALAI KI JHUGGI
     DURGANAGAR, BAGSEVANIYA,
     BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.   AASHISH GADGE, S/O LAKHANLAL GADGE ,
     AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O MELAKHANTI,
     LOHARINAKA, SONGIR, KABRISTAN ROAD, KHANDWA
     PRESENTLY RESIDES KAMAL BALAI KI JHUGGI,
     DURGANAGAR, BAGSEVANIYA
     BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                         .....APPELLANTS
     (By Shri Alok Tiwari, Advocate as Amicus Curiae )

     AND

     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
     TH:P.S. BAIRAGARH, DISTT. BHOPAL
     (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                         .....RESPONDENT
     (By Shri Shetal Tiwari, Panel Lawyer)


             Arguments heard on   : 28.10.2021
            Judgment delivered on : 25.03.2022




                          JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence dated 29.11.2012

passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in S.T. No.414/011, whereby the appellants have been found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 392 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default stipulations.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

3. As per prosecution, on 23.02.2010 at around 2.20 P.M., complainant Sudha Sharma lodged a complaint that while she was going on her scooty towards Shrimaya hospital, two unknown persons suddenly came on motorcycle and snatched her gold chain. On the basis of this complaint, FIR was registered against unknown persons under Sections 392, 212, 216(a) of I.P.C. at Crime No.01/11. During investigation, police interrogated the accused persons/appellants, who were under custody in relation to another crime number, on the basis of their memorandum, looted chains were recovered from them. The accused persons were identified by the complainant, after which they have formally arrested and challan was filed.

4. The trial Court framed charges under Section 392 of the I.P.C. The accused persons abjured the guilt. Prosecution examined 9 witnesses to substantiate its case. The trial Court after marshalling of the evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused persons as aforestated.

5. On perusal of the record, I find the testimony of complainant Sudha Sharma (P.W.-1), seizure witnesses Kailash Saleja (P.W.-5) and Bharat Singh (P.W.-9) unimpeachable and trustworthy.

The testimony of Sudha Sharma (P.W.-1) and of Kailash Saleja (P.W.-

5) and Bharat Singh (P.W.-9) is further corroborated by C.P. Dwivedi (P.W.-8).

6. In view of this unimpeachable testimony of the aforestated witnesses, the trial Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in convicting the appellants. There is no merit in the appeal, same is accordingly dismissed. The judgment of the trial Court is affirmed.

7. It is stated that the appellants have already completed their sentence and appellant No.1 has already been released and appellant No.2 is in jail for serving out the sentence in some other case.

(Nandita Dubey) Judge SMT. GEETHA NAIR 25/03/2022 gn 2022.03.25 15:49:16 +05'30'