[email protected] vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 4368 MP

                                                  1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                       AT INDORE
                                           BEFORE
                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                          ON THE 20th OF MARCH, 2023
                   CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1079 of 2015

  BETWEEN:-
  MUNNA @ DEENDAYAL S/O BHAGWAN,
  AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
  OCCUPATION - LABOURER,
  R/O: SENDHWA, DISTRICT BARWANI (M.P.)
                                                                                 .....APPLICANT
  (BY SHRI M.K. JOSHI - ADVOCATE)

  AND
  THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
  THROUGH DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
  BARWANI (M.P.)
                                                                        .....NON APPLICANT
  (BY SHRI KAPIL MAHANT - PANEL LAWYER)
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     This criminal revision coming on for hearing this day, the court
passed the following:



                                            ORDER

1/ This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment dated 13.8.2015 passed by the 2nd ASJ, Sendhwa, District Barwani, whereby the judgment dated 6.7.2012 passed by the JMFC, Sendhwa in Criminal

Case No.178/07 has been affirmed, by which applicant has been convicted for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") and sentenced to 6 months R.I. and fine of Rs.200/-, with usual default stipulation.

2/ The prosecution story in brief is that during the intervening night of 24th and 25th June, 1997 some miscreants have committed theft in the house of the complainant Gopal situated at Moti Bagh, Sendhwa and stolen golden necklace, golden bangles, golden ring and one Mangalsutra. During the investigation some stolen property has been recovered from the possession of the present applicant/accused Munna @ Deendayal. Accordingly offence has been registered against the present applicant.

3/ After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the applicant/accused before the trial Court. Trial court has framed the charge under Section 411 of IPC against the present applicant and Section 457 & 480 of IPC against the other co-accused persons. Applicant abjured his guilt and took a plea that he has been falsely implicated in this matter.

4/ After completion of the trial, trial court has acquitted all other accused persons from the charge under Section 457 & 380 of IPC, but co-accused Raju has been convicted for the offence under Section 457 & 380 of IPC and present applicant Munna has been convicted for

the offence under Section 411 of IPC and sentenced to 6 months R.I. and fine of Rs.200/-, with usual default stipulation.

5/ Being aggrieved by the said conviction, the applicant has preferred Criminal Appeal before the 2nd ASJ, Sendhwa, District Barwani. The same was also dismissed by maintaining the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the applicant has preferred the present Criminal Revision before this Court.

6/ The applicant has preferred the present revision on various grounds, but during the course of the argument learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant does not want to press this criminal revision on merit and he is not assailing the conviction part of the judgment, but he has confined his argument only to the extent of quantum of sentence part. His sole prayer is that the imprisonment of the applicant be reduced to the period already undergone, as the applicant has suffered some period of jail sentence. During the pendency of this criminal revision, the applicant was regularly marking his presence before this Court. He is a poor person and not having any criminal background. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant's jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

7/ Per contra, learned PL for respondent/State opposed the revision and prayed for its rejection by submitting that both the courts

below have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant and the sentence in question is sufficient.

8/ Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

9/ In view of the submissions made by counsel for the applicant, although the conviction has not been challenged by the applicant but from perusal of the evidence available on record also justified the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court and the first appellate court.

10/ So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant appears to be just and proper. The applicant has remained in custody since 15.10.1997 to 6.11.1997 and from 13.8.2015 to 1.9.2015. At the time of incident applicant was 45 years old person. He is facing the trial since 1997, therefore, it would be appropriate to reduce the jail sentence awarded to him.

11/ Considering the aforesaid, I deem it proper to reduce the jail sentence of the applicant under Section 411 of IPC from 6 months R.I. to the period already undergone. The fine amount of Rs.200/- imposed by both the courts below is hereby affirmed.

12/ Consequently the present Criminal Revision is partly allowed to the extent as indicated above. The applicant is on bail, his bail bond and surety bond stand discharged.

13/ The order regarding disposal of the property as pronounced by the trial Court is also affirmed.

14/ Let a copy of this order along with the record of the trial Court and the first appellate court be sent back to the concerned court for necessary action.

C.C. as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Trilok/-

Digitally signed by TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Date: 2023.03.21 18:52:50 +05'30'