Sattar @ Rafiq vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 22417 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sattar @ Rafiq vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 December, 2023

                                 1
 IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT JABALPUR
                         BEFORE
        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
                  ON THE 26 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1179 of 2015

BETWEEN:-
SATTAR @ RAFIQ S/O MAGGAN, AGED ABOUT 50
YEARS R/O MILONIGANJ, MACHEHLI MARKET, P.S.
GOHALPUR, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                             .....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SALIM AHMED - ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT )

AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. P.S. G.R.P. ,
GADARWARA,       DISTRICT     NARSINGHPUR
NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                           .....RESPONDENT
(BY MS. SHANTI TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER FOR STATE)

      Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
                                JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. (in short 'Code") has been

preferred by the appellant assailing the judgment and conviction dated 24.04.2015 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 379 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year.

Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the complainant Ajit Kumar Raghuwanshi (P.W.3), resident of village Baruadhana, Station Sohagpur, District Hoshangabad had come by train No. 51189 Itarsi- Allahabad from Pipariya to Narsinghpur on 16.05.2014. As he got down from the train at Narsinghpur Station, one person (appellant Sattar @ Rafiq) looted his purse

and tried to run away. He caught the appellant with the help of one Neeraj Raghuwanshi (P.W.2) and Pradeep Maratha (P.W.1). Thereafter, he lodged Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/7) at G.R.P. Chowki, District Narsinghpur, which was made basis for recording F.I.R.(Ex. P/8) at Crime No. 56/2014 under Section 392 of the I.P.C.

Investigation ensued and after completion of same, charge-sheet was filed. Charge under Section 392 of IPC was framed and read over to him. He abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried.

Prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses including the complainant, Neeraj Raghuwanshi (P.W.2) and the investigating officer. Incriminating

circumstances against the appellant were brought before him under Section 313 of the Code, which he either denied or claimed ignorance. He did not adduce any evidence in defence.

Learned trial Court, after hearing the parties and going through the record convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned hereinabove.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the evidence available on record, he does not wish to press the appeal on the point of conviction. As far as the sentence is concerned, he submits that the appellant had been in jail from 17.05.2014 to 01.08.2014 (about 2-1/2 months), the incident occurred about 9-1/2 years ago on a trivial issue, appellant has no criminal antecedents, hence a lenient view may be adopted by the Court in respect of the sentence and same may be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant.

Learned counsel for the State submits that an appropriate order may be passed by the Court keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The evidence adduced in support of the allegations with regard to the offence under Section 379 of IPC is found to be clear, cogent and consistent. The same is free from any material infirmity or anomaly. The appellant was caught red-handed and the stolen purse along with money and other documents were recovered from him, is amply proved. Thus, it cannot be said that the trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant under Section 379 of IPC. As regards, the sentence, prayer made on behalf of the appellant appears to be reasonable. The incident took place about 9-1/2 years ago on 16.05.2014. Meager amount of money is involved in the case. The appellant has no criminal antecedents. The sentence deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 379 of IPC is maintained. As regards the sentence, the same is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. Here it is relevant to mention that the appellant is already on bail.

Record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent back to the concerned Court for compliance and necessary action.

(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) V. JUDGE Vikram

Date: 2023.12.27 10:38:30 +05'30'