Sikandar @ Shajad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 290 MP

                                                            1
                          IN      THE        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
                                               ON THE 5 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                                             CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6749 of 2021

                         BETWEEN:-
                         SIKANDAR @ SHAJAD S/O HABIB, AGED ABOUT 32
                         YEARS, OCCUPATION: TRUCK DRIVER R/O WARD NO.
                         19, BHANDARIYA, PS CHANDAMETA, DISTRICT
                         CHHINDWARA (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....APPELLANT
                         (BY SHRI AHADULLA USMANI - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. POLICE
                         STATION MOHKHEDA DISTT. CHHINDWARA (M.P.)
                         (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENT
                         (BY SHRI KISHORE ROY - PANEL LAWYER )

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

This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is preferred against the judgment dated 23/10/2021 passed by Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, District Chhindwara in Sessions Trial No. 408/2006, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and 3 years R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/- for each offence respectively with usual default stipulation.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 1/7/2023 1:56:22 PM

02. Prosecution story in short is that on 15/04/2006 Police Station Muhkheda ASI/SHO Mukesh Khampariya received an information that in night at about 8:45 P.M., 6-7 miscreants near Anjani Chowk, behind Hanuman Mandir, near Hari Kedbe Field, were sitting in the hut and planning to commit dacoity in Malviya Petrol Pump. This information was recorded in Rojanamach Sanha No. 408/2006 and thereafter, informed the Chowki In-charge Umra Nala and from Police Station Lavaghoghri Additional Force reached Umra Nala and Senior Officers were informed and proceeded towards the spot, near Hanuman Mandir one Sumo was seen, which was encircled and raided the hut near the field of Kadwe, where the accused persons were planning to commit loot, on

hearing footstep the miscreants tried to run away but was caught and their names were inquired. On search from Zia-ul-Haq one desi revolver with two live cartridges, driving license, six railway tickets, torch, purse were found; from Narayan Vishwakarma key of Sumo vehicle, five notes of Rs.100/- denomination were sized; from appellant one iron rod pointed, 8 sooth in width, Pencil Torch; from Nisar Ali one iron knife, one white reliance mobile, one diary having telephone numbers, motorcycle registration; from Shailendra Narnore one iron knife was seized. Two miscreants namely Nasim and Mubeen ran away. After returning to Police Station, FIR No. 85/2006 was registered and after completion of investigation, challan was filed.

03. Appellant abjured his guilt and took a plea that he has been falsely implicated in the present case.

04. Trial Court after considering the submissions advance by the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the entire evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned herein above.

05. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 1/7/2023 1:56:22 PM

nearly completed two years in custody. Therefore, counsel has confined his submission only to one ground. He also expressly gave up his challenge to the findings of the Court below so far as the conviction of the appellant is concerned under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC, 1860, however, he challenged the quantum of punishment awarded to the appellant for the said offence.

06. Learned counsel has assured that the appellant will not involve in such criminal activities in future. It is also submitted that having regard to all circumstances which resulted in appellant's conviction and further keeping in view the fact that the appellant is facing trial for more than 16 years and has already undergone near about 2 years imprisonment till date, the term of imprisonment be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant and the fine amount be suitably enhanced.

07. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the sentence awarded by the trial Court to the appellant does not deserve any leniency from this Court as the appellant has failed to make out any case for modification of the sentence awarded to him.

08. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entire record of the case, I am inclined to allow this appeal in part upon finding some force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.

09. Though the appellant has not made any attempt to assail the finding of his conviction on merits, yet with a view to satisfy myself as to whether the findings of the Court below of conviction is legally sustainable or not. I perused the record and especially therein having so perused, I am satisfied that no case is made out to interfere in the findings of the Court below. Therefore, I uphold

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 1/7/2023 1:56:22 PM

the findings of conviction under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC, 1860 recorded by the trial Court.

10. Now the question arises as to whether the appellant's sentence should be reduced and if so, to what extent as urged by the learned counsel for the appellant.

11. In the present case, considering the weapon used by the appellant coupled with the fact that the appellant is the only earning member of his respective family and he is in jail for a period of about 2 years and he has assured that in future he will not involve in any criminal activities, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would meet if the sentence of the appellant is reduced from 5 years R.I to 2 years R.I for the offence punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC, and accordingly, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to 2 years R.I.

12. Resultantly, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. The conviction recorded by the trial Court is hereby affirmed and the sentence recorded by the trial Court is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 2 years R.I. Fine amount is also affirmed. The appellant is in jail. He is directed to be released from jail on completion of two years rigorous imprisonment, if not already completed and if not required to be detained in any other offence.

A copy of the judgment along with record be sent to the trial Court for information and its compliance.

Certified copy as per Rules.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)) JUDGE skt

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 1/7/2023 1:56:22 PM

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 1/7/2023 1:56:22 PM