Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 February, 2024
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
ON THE 1 st OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 307 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
RAMESH SINGH S/O SHRI MADAN GOPAL DIXIT, AGED
ABOUT 41 YEARS, WARD NO 6 PHOOP DISTRICT BHIND
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY MR. KALIKA PRASAD MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE POLICE
STATION THROUGH POLICE STATION PHOOP DISTRICT
BHIND M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. RAMADHAR CHOUBEY - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
I.A. No. 1594 of 2024 has been filed seeking condonation of delay in
filing criminal revision is taken up considered and allowed for the reasons
mentioned therein. Delay in filing the criminal revision is hereby condoned.
T h is criminal revision has been filed assailing the judgment dated
04.07.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 37/2023 by Seventh Additional
Sessions Judge, Bhind (M.P.) whereby the judgment passed by Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Morena passed in Criminal Case No.2163/2014, dated
30.01.2023, was affirmed, whereby the petitioner/accused was convicted and
sentenced under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC to undergo rigorous
imprisonment of one-one year RI with fine of Rs.1000/- and Rs.1000/-, with
default stipulations.
T h e prosecution case in brief is that on 25.10.2015, complainant
Krishnakant Purohit filed a report to the effect that at around 01 am in the
midnight of 24/25.10.2015, he heard a rattling sound, when he woke up and
looked in the house, he found that petitioner along with two other co-accused
persons broke the window and entered into the house and stolen a laptop, a
gold necklace, Mangalsutra, Mangalsutra pendant, four gold bangles, gold chain
and the clothes. Upon report, Crime No.182/2014 was registered and after
completion of investigation, charge sheet under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC
was filed.
Learned Trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner/accused.
T he learned trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the rival parties and
after appreciating the evidence available on record vide judgment dated
30/01/2023 passed in Criminal Case No.2163/2014 convicted the petitioner for
the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC and sentenced him
t o undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01-01 year with fine of Rs.1000/- -
Rs.1000/- respectively with default stipulation. Being aggrieved, the petitioner
filed an appeal bearing Cr.A. No.37/2023 before the learned VII Additional
Sessions Judge, Bhind, wherein, the learned lower appellate Court after hearing
learned counsel for the rival parties vide impugned judgment dated 04/07/2023
affirmed the judgment dated 30/01/2023 passed by the trial Court, against
which, the present revision is filed.
Learned counsel for the accused/petitioner argued that the petitioner has
falsely been implicated in the case. It is further argued that there are omissions
and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Further
argument is that the petitioner is facing the criminal proceedings since the year,
2014 to till date and is suffering physically and mentally for the same and he has
already served total incarceration of approximately nine months o ut of total
awarded maximum sentence of One Year. On these grounds, it is prayed that
revision filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed and the judgment of
conviction deserves to be set aside.
In alternative, leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has already served total incarceration of approximately nine months out of total
awarded maximum sentence of One year. It is submitted that looking to the
nature of offence and the fact that petitioner has already served substantive part
of jail sentence, the same may be reduced to the period already undergone and
the amount of fine may reasonably be enhanced.
Learned counsel for respondent/State submits that after due appreciation
o f evidence, learned Courts below have found the offence proved against the
petitioner, which requires no interference. It is submitted that the revision filed
by the petitioner be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that no illegality has
been committed by the learned Courts below in convicting the petitioner hence,
the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Courts below requires no
interference and the same is hereby maintained.
S o far as the period of sentence is concerned, looking to the limited
prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and the nature of offence and the
fact that petitioner is facing the criminal proceedings since the year, 2014 and
has already served substantive period of jail sentence, the purpose would be
served in case the jail sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the
period already undergone. However, for the offence punishable under Sections
457 and 380 of IPC, the petitioner is directed to pay additional fine amount as
Rs.2000/- in addition to the fine already imposed by the trial Court.
I n the result, this criminal revision is partly allowed. The findings of
conviction are hereby maintained with the modification to the extent that the jail
sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone
subject to depositing fine amount as imposed by the Courts below as well as
additional fine amount of Rs.2,000/- which shall be deposited before the trial
Court within a period of two months from today, failing which, the petitioner
shall suffer jail sentence awarded by the learned Courts below. The petitioner is
in jail. He be released and set free, if not required in any other case.
Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for information and
necessary compliance.
With the aforesaid modification, the instant criminal revision stands
disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE
ar
