Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shailendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2024
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 7 th OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1484 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SURAJ S/O DILIP KHATIK, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABORER VILLAGE PARADA P.S.
MANASA, DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI PARVEZ KHAN, ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION NEEMUCH CITY
DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI G. RAWAT, GA FOR STATE)
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 15913 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SHAILENDRA S/O SHRI BASANTILAL NATHBABA, AGED
ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOURER VILLAGE
PADHDA, MANASA, DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI A. RATHORE, ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION NEEMUCH CITY
DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI G. RAWAT, GA FOR STATE )
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 5/8/2024
4:51:07 PM
2
Reserved on: 13.04.2024
Delivered on: 07.05.2024
These appeals having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on
for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
JUDGMENT
This judgment shall govern the disposal of these appeals as they are
arisen out of same crime of the police station, hence, they are heard analogously
and are being decided by this common order.
2. These criminal appeals under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by
the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.12.2023, passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch District- Neemuch in Sessions Trial
No.43/2021, whereby the appellants have been convicted for offence under
Sections 392/34 of IPC, 1860 and sentenced to undergo 04 years R.I with fine
of Rs.5000/- 5000/- and in default of fine to undergo 3 months R.I in addition.
3. As per prosecution story, on 23.06.2021, the complainant has lodged a
FIR at police station Neemuch City by submitting that as usually, he alongwith
his colleague was coming to home on a motorcycle after completing his duties
and when they were crossing the Revli-Devli bus stand, he taken his mobile out
of his pocket then three persons came on a motorcycle and snatched his mobile
phone, they tried to chase them but the accused persons could not be chased.
Hence, the FIR was registered under Section 356 of IPC. After the statements
of the witnesses, the offence under Section 392/34 of IPC was added.
4 . After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was
filed. Thereafter, the learned trial Court has framed charges
against the appellants under Section 392 of IPC. The matter
was later on committed to the Court of Session.
5. In support of the case, the prosecution has examined as many as 7
witnesses namely Ramchandra Verma (PW-1), Mukesh Bhepariya (PW-2),
Radhakishan (PW-3), Banshinath (PW-4), Preetam (PW-5), Vivek Gupta (PW-
6), Prashan Jayant (PW-7), Rajendra Singh Sisodiya (PW-8), Ramnarayan
Dahiya (PW-9), Bhagwan Lal (PW-10) and Rajesh Vasuniya (PW-11). No
witness has been adduced by the appellants in their defence. The learned
Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence and arguments adduced by the
parties, finally concluded the case and convicted the appellants for the
commission of the offence punishable under Section 392/34 of IPC, vide the
impugned judgment.
6 . The appellants have preferred these criminal appeals on several
grounds and during the course of arguments, they initially submitted that the
learned trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellants because there is no
legal or direct evidence against the appellants. There is material contradictions
and omissions in the statements of the witnesses but the learned trial Court has
not considered the evidence available on record and convicted the appellants
wrongly. It is also submitted that the there is no recovery from the appellants,
but even after the learned trial Court has convicted the appellants. Hence, the
impugned order is liable to be set aside.
7. However, in the course of arguments, they confine their arguments on
the point of sentence. Counsels for the appellants assure that the appellants will
not involve in such criminal activities in future. They also submitted that
the appellants have already suffered approximately 08 months of their jail
incarceration. Counsel for the appellants have submitted that there is no
recovery from the present appellants and they are first offender. They further
submitted that they are having regard to all circumstances which resulted in
appellants' conviction. Further keeping in view the fact that the appellants were
facing the trial before the concerned Court for more than 04 years, therefore,
they prayed that the appeal be partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the
appellant be reduced to the period already undergone.
8. Learned Govt. Advocate has opposed the prayer. He supported the
judgment and order by submitting that there is clear evidence against the
appellants, therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeals.
9. I have considered rival contentions of the parties and have perused the
record.
10. So for as the contentions on merits of the case raised in their appeal
memo by learned counsels for the appellants is concerned, the learned trial
Court has not committed any error in appreciation of evidence available on
record. Further, it is found that the Court below considered the evidence
available on record and correctly found that the case of the prosecution
is well supported by the witnesses and documentary testimony. The
procedure was well followed by the prosecution and the witnesses of
prosecution have profoundly supported the prosecution case.
11. This case is well supported by the FIR lodged by the complainant
who has also graphically supported the contents of FIR. The contents regarding
incident has been well fortified not only by the complainant but also by the
other witnesses in their Court statements. The accused persons are evidently
identified by the prosecution witnesses during their statements. As such, the
contention regarding improper identification is also found without merits.
12.So far as the omissions and contradictions are concerned, no such
omissions or contradictions have been adverted by learned counsel for the
appellants which goes to the root of the case. In this way, it is found that the
learned trial Court has well considered the material available on record on
proper perspectives and has not committed any error in appreciation of
evidence. Accordingly, no infirmity or illegality is appeared in the impugned
order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court, hence, the same is
upheld.
13. So far as the sentence part is concerned, considering the fact that the
appellants are facing the trial for more than 4 years and appellants have already
suffered approximately 08 months i n custody, judgment of learned trial
Court is modified to the extent that the sentence of the appellants be reduced to
the period of 01 year and 03 months in place of 04 years by enhancing the total
fine amount from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- each, which shall be paid by
appellants before releasing from the jail. In case of failure of payment of
enhanced fine amount of Rs.10,000/- before the Court below as stipulated
above, the appellants shall further undergo 2 months S.I. and thereafter
complying of the same, they shall be released from the jail, if not required in any
other case after competition of aforesaid period as directed above.
14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the appeal stands
disposed of.
15. A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned Court for
necessary information.
16. The judgment of the trial Court regarding disposal of the seized
article, if any, stands confirmed.
17. A copy of this judgment be placed in the record of connected
Criminal Appeal.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
AMIT
