Madhya Pradesh High Court
Khera @ Sobran Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 March, 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 4 th OF MARCH, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 181 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
KHERA @ SOBRAN SINGH S/O SHRI ASHARAM LODHI,
AGED 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION : AGRICULTURIST,
VILLAGE RAJAPUR, POLICE STATION MAYAPUR,
DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SURESH AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH TOWN
INSPECTOR POLICE STATION MAYAPUR DISTRICT
SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ATUL SHARMA - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is revision coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner under
Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated
21.04.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pichhore, District
Shivpuri (M.P.) in Cr.A.No.47/2019 affirming the judgment and conviction
dated 12.07.2019 passed in R.C.T. No.981/2014 by the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Khaniyadana, 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.200/- with default stipulation.
2. As per prosecution story, short facts of the case leading to filing of
this criminal revision are that on 04.12.2014, Head Constable Mubinuddin
received an information by a whistle-blower that present appellant, who was
residing at Village Rajpur, was standing near Nala of Rajapur Piproda Road
having Katta in his hand with the intention to cause any untoward incident. On
the information, he alongwith police force reached at the spot. Having seen the
police, the present appellant tried to flee away. The police party caught-hold
him. From the possession of the appellant, a 315 bore countrymade pistol and
one live cartridge were seized. On being asked about the license, he could not
show any license.
3. An FIR bearing Crime No.286/2014 was registered against the
appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act. On
lodging of F.I.R., criminal law was triggered and set in motion, Investigation
Agency recorded the statements of prosecution witnesses, prepared the spot
map, arrested the accused person and after completion of all due formalities,
the charge-sheet was submitted before the trial Court having criminal
jurisdiction.
4. The learned trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner for the
offence punishable under Sections 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 six witnesses (PW-1 to PW-6). The defence of accused is of false
implication and the same defence has been put forth by him in his statement.
The learned trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the rival parties and
after appreciating the evidence available on record vide judgment dated
12.07.2019 passed in R.C.T. No.981/2014 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.200/- with
default stipulation. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal bearing Cr.A.
No.47/2019 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pichhore District
Shivpuri (M.P.). The learned appellate Court after hearing learned counsel for
the rival parties vide impugned judgment dated 21.04.2023 affirmed the
judgment dated 12.07.2019 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 material
contradictions and omissions 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 eight months out 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.
6. In alternative, leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has already served total incarceration of eight 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.
7. Learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State submits that after due
appreciation of 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.
8. 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.
9. So 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.
10. In 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, failing
which, the petitioner shall suffer remaining jail sentence. The petitioner is on
bail. His bail bonds stand discharged.
11. With the aforesaid modification, the instant criminal revision stands
disposed of.
12. Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for information and
necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE
AK/-
ANAND
KUMAR
2024.03.05
12:43:00
+05'30'
