Madhya Pradesh High Court
Asharam 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 BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 28 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1823 of 2016
BETWEEN:-
1. ASHARAM S/O DHANNALAL HARBOLA, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, VILLAGE KASHIPURA TEHSIL
HARSOOD (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. JAGDISH S/O MEHTAB, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BEGGAR R/O VILLAGE BENPURA,
BURBADA, P.S.JAWAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SUMAN MUKHARJEE - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
ASHTA SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. SHAKTI TRIPATHI - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (or short "Code") assails the judgment and order dated
23.06.2016 passed passed by the learned Special Judge (Electricity Act) & 2nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Astha, Sehore (M.P.) in Special Case No. 10 of
2016 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under
Sections 136 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.2000/- each with default
stipulations.
2. The incident relating to the theft of electricity wire was reported to the
Police Station Astha District Sehore (M.P.) where it was registered on Crime
No. 424 of 2016. The investigation was set in motion and on its completion
charge-sheet was filed. Learned trial Court after hearing the concerned parties
and on due appreciation of the evidence on record vide impugned judgment,
convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned herein above.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants challenging the conviction and sentence
submits that the learned trial Court has failed to notice the serious anomalies,
contradictions and omissions present in the testimony of prosecution witnesses.
He has committed serious error of fact and law in recording the findings of
conviction. Therefore, appellants are entitled for acquittal. In the alternative limb
of prayer, learned counsel for appellants submits that the incident is allegedly
taken place on 10.05.2016 more than 07 years back. Appellants have no
criminal antecedent and they have remained in custody for near about 70 days.
Hence, the lenient view may be taken and the period of jail sentence be reduced
for the period already undergone by them.
4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State oppose the prayer on the ground that
the impugned judgment is based on on due appreciation on evidence available
on record, therefore, needs no interference in appeal, the appeal is devoid of
merits and deserves to be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The evidence adduced in support of the allegation with regard to offence
under Section 136 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is found to be clear, cogent and
consistent. The same is free from any material infirmity and anomaly. The
testimony of the prosecution witness stands duly corroborated with First
Information Report (Ex.P-10). Therefore, it cannot be inferred that the learned
trial Court has committed any error in recording conviction for offence under
Section 136 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the appellants. Therefore, the
conviction recorded by the trial Court is hereby affirmed.
7. As regards the sentence, prayer made on behalf of appellants appears to
be reasonable. From perusal of para-15 of the impugned judgment, it is evident
that appellants were arrested on 13.05.2016 and till the date of judgment i.e. on
23.06.2016 they were remain in custody. From perusal of the records of this
appeal, it is apparent that on 22.07.2016 the liberty of bail was granted to the
appellants. Thus, the appellants remained in custody 70 days during the trial.
They have faced the trial and this appeal for the last 07 years. No criminal
antecedents have been proved, therefore, the the prayer for reducing the jail
sentence appears to be reasonable.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed on the point of sentence. The
conviction of the appellants is maintained. As regard the sentence, the same is
reduced to the period already undergone by them.
9. The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds and sureties bond shall stands
discharged.
10. Let the record of the learned trial Court alongwith the copy of the
judgement be forthwith sent back to the learned trial Court for compliance and
necessary action.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
V. JUDGE
Amitabh
