Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2024
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 464/2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
O R D E R DATED 26th FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 464 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SANJAY YADAV S/O KERAN SINGH @ FERAN SINGH YADAV, AGED ABOUT 36
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE PAHALGAWA THANA SIPRI
BAZAR DISTRICT JHANSI UP (UTTAR PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH YADAV - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE POLICE STATION THROUGH
POLICE STATION KHANIYADHANA DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ATUL SHARMA - PANEL LAWYER)
This revision coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:-
ORDER
1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner under section 397
r/w section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment dated
30/04/2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Picchore, District Shivpuri in
Cr.A. No. 29/2022 affirming the judgment dated 18/02/2021 passed in Criminal
Case No. 100/2020 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khaniyadhana, District
Shivpuri, whereby, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence
punishable under Section 25 (1-B)(A) of Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for One year with fine of Rs. 500/- with default
stipulation.
2. As per prosecution story, short facts of the case leading to filing of this
criminal revision are that on 14/09/2020 on the basis of information received from
the informer, police apprehended the petitioner and recovered from his possession
one .315 bore country made pistol and two live cartridges, for which, the petitioner
was not having any valid and effective license with him. Thereafter, an FIR
bearing crime No. 286/2020 was registered at police station Khaniyadhana,
District Shivpuri against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section
25/27 of Arms Act. After completion of all due formalities, the charge sheet was
submitted before the trial Court having criminal jurisdiction.
3. The learned trial Court framed the charge against the petitioner for the
offence punishable under section 25 (1-B)(A) of Arms Act, which was denied by
him. In order to bring home the charges, prosecution has examined as many as
eight prosecution witnesses (PW-1 to PW-8) and placed Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-7
documents on record. The defence of accused is of false implication and the same
defence has been put forth by him in his statement recorded under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C.
4. The learned trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the rival parties and
after appreciating the evidence available on record vide judgment dated
18/02/2021 passed in criminal case No. 100/2020 convicted the petitioner for the
offence punishable under section 25 (1-B)(A) of Arms Act and sentenced him to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for One year with fine of Rs. 500/- with default
stipulation. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal bearing Cr. A. No.
29/2022 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pichhore, District Shivpuri.
The learned lower appellate Court after hearing learned counsel for the rival
parties vide impugned judgment dated 30/04/2022 affirmed the judgment dated
18/02/2021 passed by the trial Court, against which, the present revision is filed.
5. 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. It is further submitted
that prosecution has not examined any independent witness, but only interested
witnesses have been examined. It is further argued that the petitioner is facing the
criminal proceedings from the date of incident i.e. 14/09/2020 to till date and is
suffering physically and mentally for the same and the petitioner has already
suffered the sentence of one year awarded by the trial court and till date he is
languishing in jail. On these grounds, it is prayed that the revision filed by the
petitioner deserves to be allowed and the judgment of conviction deserves to be set
aside.
6. Learned counsel for respondent/State submits that after due appreciation of
evidence, learned both the 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.
7. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length and perused the
material available on record.
8. It is settled law that interference in the impugned judgment is permissible
only if the view of Trial Court is not only erroneous, but also unreasonable and
perverse. It is also settled principle of law that only in a case when the judgment
of trial Court is stated to be perverse, then it is open to the High Court to
reappraise the evidence. Scope of interference in an appeal or revision against
the impugned judgment is very limited.
9. Having considered all the aspects of the matter and after re-appreciating
the evidence adduced by the prosecution, this Court is satisfied that this is not a
case in which this Court may be justified in interfering with judgment of
conviction passed by both the Courts below. The reasons given by both the
Courts below for convicting the petitioner appears to be reasonable and are
based on evidence.
10. In view of above, this Court finds no merit in this criminal revision and
the same is, accordingly, dismissed. The trial court is directed to release and set
free the petitioner forthwith, in case, he has completed the entire sentence as
awarded by the trial court and, if he is not required in any other case.
11. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE
Durgekar*
