Madhya Pradesh High Court
Radheshyam @ Radhu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 28 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2854 of 2016
BETWEEN:-
1. RADHESHYAM @ RADHU S/O SHRI KUNWAR
SINGH BHILALA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O
GUDI, P.S. PIPLOD, DISTRICT KHANDWA,
MADHYA PRADESH.
2. ESHWAR W/O RAYLYA BHILALA, AGED ABOUT 30
YEARS, R/O JAMANYA, BHAWRAGHAT ROAD,
RUKHDIYA FALYA, P.S. KHAKNAR, TEH.
KHAKNAR AND DIST. BURHANPUR, MADHYA
PRADESH.
3. KUNWARSINGH S/O WERSINGH BHILALA, AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O JAMANYA, BHAWRAGHAT
ROAD, RUKHDIYA FALYA, P.S. KHAKNAR, TEH.
KHAKNAR AND DIST. BURHANPUR, MADHYA
PRADESH.
4. KERIYA @ KERSINGH S/O RAYLYA, AGED ABOUT
26 YEARS, JAMANYA, BHAWRAGHAT ROAD,
RUKHDIYA FALYA, P.S. KHAKNAR, TEH.
KHAKNAR AND DIST. BURHANPUR, MADHYA
PRADESH.
5. DEVENDRA SINGH @ PAPPU S/O
GURUCHARANSINGH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O VILLAGE GUDI, P.S. PIPLOD, AT PRESENT
PUNJAB COLONY, KHANDWA, DISTRICT
KHANDWA, MADHYA PRADESH.
.....APPELLANTS
(NONE FOR THE APPELLANTS )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S. NEPA
NAGAR, BURHANPUR, MADHYA PRADESH.
.....RESPONDENT
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 1/4/2024
2:16:35 PM
2
(BY SHRI NARENDRA SINGH LODHI - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE )
Th is appeal coming on for hearing, this day, th e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the appellant/accused against the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.09.2016
passed by Special Judge/First Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur in Session
Trial No.01/2013, whereby the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellants
No.1-4 and 5 for commission of offence under Section 136 and 137 of
Electricity Act, 2003 and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
one year and fine of Rs.10,000/- each respectively.
2. The prosecution case against the appellants is that on 27.07.2012, it
was found that sometime prior to that date some electric components from 5
transformers were stolen. The reason for delay was that theft was detected after
inspection of lines. The appellants No.1-4 have been convicted for theft under
Section 136 and appellant No.5 has been convicted for receiving stolen
property under Section 137.
3. Looking to the material evidence on record, deposition of PW1 Sunil,
PW-2 Ranjeet Kumar, PW-3 Nitin, PW-4 Gulab Singh and other witnesses, the
Trial Court found the offence to be proved for offences as mentioned above.
4. After having perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is
found that the findings recorded by the Trial Court upholding the guilt of the
accused-appellants are impeccable and the prosecution has succeeded in
proving the case against the accused-appellant. There is nothing in cross
examination of the witnesses that may demolish the prosecution case. Thus,
there is nothing in the said findings of the trial court that can be said to be
erroneous or perverse, warranting interference by this Court in Appellate
jurisdiction.
5. Thus, the conviction of the appellants as ordered by the trial court is
hereby upheld.
6. However, there are certain mitigating circumstances that deserve to be
taken in consideration so far as the sentence part is concerned. The
appellants/accused is first offender and the incident took place in the year 2012
and accused/appellant had faced trial and this appeal is pending since 2016, the
accused/appellants had been under trial or appearing before the Court as
condition to suspension of sentence since long. Nothing has come on record
regarding misuse of conditions of bail/suspension of sentence during the long
period since the prosecution, trial and appeal are pending. Thus, this Court
deems it fit to reduce the sentence of the appellants No.1 to 4 to the period
already undergone by them (Appellant No.1 to 3 for fourteen days, Appellant
No.4 for four days) and to enhance the fine to additional amount of Rs.5,000/-
each (Five Thousand) for Appellants No.1 to 4 and additional amount of
Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand) for Appellant No.5, who is sentenced with fine
only.
7. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned conviction
is maintained. However, the appellant/accused persons are sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for the period they have already undergone (Appellant
No.1 to 3 for fourteen days, Appellant No.4 for four days and Appellant No.5
Nil), subject to depositing the additional fine amount of Rs.5,000/- each (Five
Thousand) for the Appellants No.1 to 4 and additional fine amount of
Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand) for Appellant No.5 within a period of three
months from today.
8. However, it is clarified that if fine amount as quantified by this Court is
not deposited within a period of three months from today, then the original
sentence would come into operation and appellant shall be taken into custody
or they would surrender themselves to serve the entire jail sentence of one year
as awarded by the learned trial Court with default stipulations.
9. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.
10. The bail bonds of the appellant/accused, if any, are discharged.
11. Registry is directed to immediately send back the trial Court record
alongwith copy of this judgment to the trial Court concerned for information
and necessary compliance.
12. With the aforesaid modification, this appeal is partly allowed and
disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
V. JUDGE
veni
