Madhya Pradesh High Court
Avdhesh @ Rajjan Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 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
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1544 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
JYOTI @ MONA @ MONIKA W/O VIJAY SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O 6 PSC
OFFICE RESIDENCY AREA DISTT.INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI NITIN VYAS, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION BANGANGA
DISTT. INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI H.S. RATHORE, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 415 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
AVDHESH @ RAJJAN YADAV S/O JAGDEV PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER 303/02,
RAJARAM NAGAR, KUSHWAH NAGAR, INDORE
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI VIVEK SINGH, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION BANGANGA,
INDORE, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI H.S. RATHORE, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINDESH
RAIKWAR
Signing time: 5/15/2024
6:55:57 PM
2
Heard on : 08.05.2024
Pronounced on : 15.05.2024
These criminal appeals having been heard and reserved for
judgments, 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 is preferred under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. by
the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.12.2023, passed by
learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, District-Indore in Sessions Trial
No.08/2021, whereby the appellant Pradeep @ Lucky has been convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred as to "IPC") and sentenced to undergo 07 years R.I. with
fine of Rs.1,000/- and default stipulation and the appellants Avdhesh @ Rajjan
and Jyoti @ Mona @ Monika have been convicted under Section 394 of IPC
and sentenced to undergo 05-05 years R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/- each and
default stipulations.
3. As per the prosecution story, on 28.08.2020 at around 08:30 pm, the
complainant/Monu Sahu took his bike bearing registration No. MP09 YS 1895
to go to his uncle Ramesh Sahu's home situated at Yadavnand Nagar. As soon
as complainant reached Dargah D.P., Indore, he received a call when he
stopped his bike to pick up the call, he took his phone from his left pocket,
while trying to pick up the call, call was disconnected. Meanwhile, the co-
accused Pradeep @ Lucky came to complainant and asked him to give his
phone, the complainant refused to give his mobile. Then the co-accused
Pradeep @ Lucky asked the complainant to make a call. Complainant switched
on his phone and while telling the number to the complainant, co-accused
Pradeep @ Lucky snatched his phone and ran towards the active which had no
registration number, where the other co-accused persons were standing near the
activa as soon as co-accused came, one person started the active on which all
three accused persons trying to run away from there on activa, when co-
accused moved activa, all three accused persons fell down from activa and
complainant parked his vehicle near them and grabbed the collar of co-accused
Pradeep @ Luck. Then co-accused Pradeep @ Lucky took out the knife from
his pant and hit the complainant on the calf of his left leg due to which bleeding
was started. When complainant shouted, his cousin Kiran Sahu and other
women who were worshipping at the temple and also one Hemant Nayak came
and saw the co-accused Lucky @ Pradeep and other three persons were
running away from the spot. Thereafter, the complainant/injured lodged an FIR
bearing Crime No. 892/2020 against the accused persons under Section 394
read with Section 34 of IPC.
4. The police after following the due procedure, prepared the spot map,
taken the statements of the witnesses, seized the article i.e. sharp knife, injured
person was sent for treatment and arrested the accused persons and after due
investigation filed the charge-sheet. The matter was committed to the Court of
Sessions.
5. The appellants were tried and charged under Section 394/34 of IPC.
They abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. The learned trial Court, after
considering the evidence and material available on record has convicted the
appellants, as stated above in para No. 1 of this order.
6. The appellants have preferred this criminal appeal on several grounds
but during the course of arguments, learned counsels for the appellants did not
press this appeal on merits and not assail the finding of conviction part of the
judgment. It is further submitted that being a lady, the appellant Jyoti @ Mona
@ Monika has already undergone a period of more than 08 months out of his
incarceration and appellant Avdhesh @ Rajjan Yadav has already undergone a
period of approximately 01 year and 10 months out of his incarceration. He
confines his arguments on the point of sentence and fine. Counsels for the
appellants assure that the appellants will not involve in such criminal activities in
future. They also submitted that having regard to all circumstances which
resulted in appellants' conviction and further keeping in view the fact that the
appellants were facing the trial before the concerned Court for more than 04
years, therefore, the term of imprisonment be reduced to the period as already
been undergone by the appellants by enhancing the fine amount.
7. Although, learned counsels for the appellants confined their arguments
only to the point of punishment, this Court, in these criminal appeals is
considering the sanctity of conviction. In these cases, complainant Monu Sahu
(PW-4) has supported the prosecution case. However, the testimony of this
witness has some contradictions and omissions. Since the complainant Monu
Sahu (PW-4) was an injured witness of the incident, his testimony has a special
status. In his examination-in-chief. He has clearly stated that on the spot of
incident, accused Pradeep had taken his mobile phone and other co-accused
persons Jyoti @ Mona @ Monika and Avdhesh @ Rajjan Yadav were standing
there on a vehicle Activa which was already started. Meanwhile, accused
Pradeep snatched his mobile, Avdhesh @ Rajjan Yadav and Jyoti @ Mona @
Monika came there and Pradeep sat on that Activa and started to flee away, but
due to imbalance of the vehicle, Activa was slipped and this witness caught the
collar of accused Pradeep. On this, Pradeep caused injury on his leg
complainant with knife and blood was oozing. In this way, all accused persons
have looted his mobile and fled away from the spot. Further, this witness stated
regarding mobile phone was of Vivo company and its value in his cross-
examination. The statement of this witness has not been rebutted.
8 . Certainly, other witnesses namely Hemant (PW-1), Kiran Malviya
(PW-2), Kiran Sahu (PW-3), Champabai (PW-5), Yashodabai (PW-6), Ruchi
Singh Chouhan (PW-7), Daulatbai (PW-8) have not supported the prosecution
c a s e and most of them have been declared hostile. Other witness Dr.
Rampravesh Kushwah (PW-9) who has treated the injured Monu Sahu (PW-4)
and endorsed MLC report (Ex.-P/13). The testimony of complainant/Monu
Sahu (PW-4) has immanent value. In addition to that, the case is well supported
by Jaydeep Rathore (PW-11) who was the Investigating Officer. He has seized
the mobile and a knife from the possession of main accused Pradeep.
9. The testimonies of witnesses Monu Sahu (PW-4) and Dr. Rampravesh
Kushwah (PW-9) are sufficient to prove the case that the appellants Jyoti @
Mona @ Monika and Avdhesh @ Rajjan Yadav are also involved in the said
loot. As such, learned trial Court after considering the material available on
record, passed the judgment of conviction against these appellants.
1 0 . The prosecution case is well supported by injured witness and
medical testimony of Dr. Rampravesh Kushwah. There is no infirmity found in
t h e impugned judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court.
Accordingly, the same is upheld.
11 . Now, turning to the point of sentence, learned counsels for the
appellants have submitted that the appellants are in jail and appellant Jyoti @
Mona @ Monika has completed her jail custody nearly 08 months while
appellant Avdhesh @ Rajjan Yadav has completed his jail custody nearly 01
year and 10 months, they should be only punished for the period already
undergone by enhancing fine amount.
12. Per contra, learned Government Advocate for the State has opposed
the contentions and requested to reject the appeals.
13. Having considered the contentions of both parties with regard to the
punishment, certainly, the role of appellant Jyoti @ Mona @ Monika and
appellant Avdhesh @ Rajjan Yadav is only to help the main accused Pradeep.
The prosecution is unable to suggest any criminal record or antecedents of
these appellants. Appellant Jyoti @ Mona @ Monika is a matured lady of 40
years and appellant Avdhesh @ Rajjan Yadav is young boy of 20 years and
also they are facing trial nearly four years. However, looking to the facts that the
offence is of serious in nature, hence, I am not inclined to let off the appellants
with the period already undergone. In the mitigating facts and circumstances of
the case, substantial punishment is required to be awarded to the appellants to
meet the ends of justice.
14. Having considered all facts and circumstances of the case,
punishment of sentence of the appellant Jyoti @ Mona @ Monika is reduced
from 05 years R.I. to 01 year & 06 months R.I. by enhancing the fine amount
from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.10,000/- under Section 394 of IPC and sentence of the
appellant Avdhesh @ Rajjan Yadav is reduced to the period from 05 years R.I.
to 02 years R.I. by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.10,000/-
each under Section 394 of IPC which will be deposited by the appellants within
a period of two months from today.
15. If the whole fine amount is recovered, out of the total fine amount,
Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to the injured person namely Monu Sahu under
Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. by the trial Court.
16. The fine amount, if already deposited as well as the compensation
amount paid to the injured if any shall be adjusted.
17. The appellants are in jail. The bail bond of the appellants shall be
discharged after depositing the fine amount.
18. If the appellants fail to deposit the fine amount, they will suffer 3-3
months of simple imprisonment in default and thereafter completion of the
same, they shall be released from jail, if not required in any other case.
19. The order of learned trial Court regarding disposal of the seized
property, if any, stands confirmed.
20. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for
necessary compliance.
21. Pending application, if any, stands closed.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
Vindesh
