Pawan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 5763 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Pawan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2024

Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla

Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla

                                                            1
                                IN   THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT INDORE
                                                     BEFORE
                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                             ON THE 26 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                           CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 16004 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    PAWAN S/O PADAM THAPA, AGED ABOUT 30
                                 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOR R/O JAJI KATERA
                                 CHAINPURA NEPAL AT PRESENT ARYA SAMAJ
                                 ROAD NEW DELHI (DELHI)

                           2.    BIRMAN @ SAMRAT S/O MANDHAMI, AGED
                                 ABOUT    34   YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR
                                 KETHALI NEPAL AT PRESENT AYUSHMAN ROAD,
                                 NEW DELHI (DELHI)

                           3.    KUSHALTA @ ANUSHKA W/O GYANBAHADUR,
                                 AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, JANAKPUR, NEPAL AT
                                 PRESENT HARSHABAD, DIST. GAZIABAD (U.P.)
                                 (UTTAR PRADESH)

                           4.    BHARATLAL S/O LALBAHADUR THAPA, AGED
                                 ABOUT     30  YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR
                                 KAILALI, NEPAL, AT PRESENT HARSHWAD, DIST.
                                 GAIZBAD (UTTAR PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....APPELLANTS
                           (BY SHRI MANOJ SAXENA - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                           OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION PACHORE DISTT.
                           RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENT
                           (BY MS. NISHA JAISWAL - PP)

                                 This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                           following:
                                                             ORDER

The present appeal is filed u/S.374 of Cr.P.C against the judgment dated

29.11.2023 passed by II ASJ, Sarangpur, District Rajgarh in ST No.383/2020 whereby the appellants have been convicted U/S.328/120-B(I), 457, 380 of IPC and sentenced to undergo five year RI with fine of Rs.2000/-, five year RI with fine of Rs.3000/- and three year RI with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation.

2. According to the prosecution, a complaint was lodged by Shriram Goyal on 15.7.2020 that on 14.7.2020 co-accused Anushka @ Kushalata who was working as a servant in the house, administered some intoxicant substance in their food because of which he and other family members became unconscious and while using this chance theft was committed. As many as 10

accused persons were prosecuted for commission of offence u/Ss.381, 328,120-B, 411 of IPC, however, out of 10 accused persons, present appellants have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned herein above.

3. Counsel for appellants submits that the prosecution could not establish the recovery of alleged stolen articles from the present appellants. He referred para 48 of the judgment where the court recorded a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove the seizure of stolen property beyond doubt. However, still the appellants have been convicted. Apart from merit, he further submits that the appellants have already undergone jail sentence of three and half years. The incident is of the year 2020. It is submitted that no minimum jail sentence is prescribed for the offences under which the appellants have been convicted. No purpose would be served retaining the appellants in jail after period of about three and half years. There is no criminal record of the appellants.

4. Counsel for State supports the order of conviction and sentence.

5. After hearing learned counsel for parties and taking into consideration the statement of complainant Shriram Goyal (PW.1) who has stated that he was knowing the accused Anushka and she was working in his house. According to him, she had administered some intoxicant substance because of which he and other family members became unconscious and theft was committed. The statement of complainant is supported by Sushma Goyal (PW.2), Kushangi Goyal (PW.4). Apart from that, the prosecution has proved the finger prints from the spot of the present appellants. Though, the recovery of articles from the present appellants have not been proved beyond doubt but in the identification, seized articles have been identified by the complainant. The identification para is proved by Tehsildar Priyanka Baghel (PW.18).

6. In view of the aforesaid consideration of assimilation of facts and evidence, this court does not find any error in the order of conviction. Heard on sentence. Considering the submissions that the appellants have undergone substantial jail sentence of three and half years and the incident is of year 2020, they are first offender, there is no criminal record, while maintaining the jail sentence of the appellants the period of sentence is reduced to the period already undergone and they will be released from jail forthwith subject to deposit of fine amount if not required in any other case.

7. With the aforesaid, appeal is partly allowed and disposed off.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE VM