Madhya Pradesh High Court
Babu Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 October, 2024
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:28813
1 CRA-2924-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2924 of 2024
BABU KHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Jay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Surendra Gupta, learned Government Advocate for the State.
Heard : 12.09.2024
Pronounced : 01.10.2024
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant under
Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being crestfallen by the
judgment dated 30.01.2024, delivered by the learned IIIrd learned Additional
Sessions Judge, District-Ratlam, in Sessions Trial No.92/2016, wherein
learned Judge has convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 328
and 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and
sentenced to undergo 07 years R.I. and 07 years R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- &
Rs.500/- respectively and default stipulations.
2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that, the complainant Lalit
(PW-1) lodged report at Police Station to the effect that on 16.10.2015, he
took the train to go from Indore to Jaipur and he was traveling in coach No.
S6 reserved berth No. 64. When the train departed the Indore Junction, the
complainant kept his beg below his seat, which containing clothes, cash of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:28813
2 CRA-2924-2024
Rs.2,500/-, his old ATM Card and also Rs.1,500/- in the pocket of his
trousers and one mobile phone of Samsung Company having BNSL Sim.
After departure, one person aged about 55 years having scar on his face sat
on the seat of the complainant and started to talk with him. On arrival of
Ratlam Station, the said person told the complainant that he wants to drink
tea, on which they got down off the train. The complainant brought POHA
while the other person is said to have got the tea. Thereafter, they went back
to train and sat on their seats and had the food and tea. Further, complainant
started vomit, due to which the other person, crushed a table in water and
made him drink. Furthermore, the complainant got unconscious. Further, it is
said that at Ajmer Station, both of them got down from train. The other
person took the complainant near Shant Francis Hospital and there allegedly
told the complainant that his health was not right for which, they need to
withdraw money from ATM. At the time, the complainant disclosed his
ATM pin to the said person and the above said person left the complainant to
Rain Basera near JLM Hospital. When the complainant got a little better, he
reached his house and his family members got him admitted in the hospital.
3. In this sequence, when the complainant got his senses properly, he
got to know that the said person who met in the train, crushed some
intoxicants in the complainant's tea and took away the cash, mobile phone,
ATM Card, Aadhar Card and also withdrew some cash from his ATM. While
leaving the complainant in Rain Basera, the said person told his name as
Sitaram S/o Sablaram. After that, the complainant also told that the said
person took 3 cheques from his cheque book. Further, police registered an
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:28813
3 CRA-2924-2024
FIR bearing Crime No. 201/2015 for the offence punishable under Sections
328 & 394 of IPC at Police Station GRP District Ratlam.
4. The police after following the due procedure, taken the statements
of the witnesses, seized the articles, prepared the medical documents,
arrested the accused person and after due investigation filed the charge sheet.
The matter was committed to the Court of Sessions.
5. The appellant was tried and charged under Sections 328 & 394 of
IPC. He abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. The learned trial Court, after
considering the evidence and material available on record has convicted the
appellant, as stated above in para No. 1 of this order.
6. In order to bring home the ingredients of the case, the prosecution
has produced as many as 11 witnesses namely Lalit, complainant (PW-1),
Dharmendra Tanka (PW-2), Sharda Devi (PW-3), Vijay (PW-4), Shyamlal
(PW-5), Dr. Abhijett Soni, Medical Officer (PW-6), Dr. C.K. Meena (PW-
7), Manandeep singh (PW-8), Dilip Singh, Sub-Inspector (PW-9), M.S.
Gautam, Sub-Inspector (PW-10) and Kailash Jagannath, Constable (PW-11).
On behalf of defence, no witness has been was adduced.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant
has preferred this criminal appeal on several grounds but during the course of
arguments, learned counsel for the appellant did not press this appeal on
merits and not assail the finding of conviction part of judgment. He confined
his argument on the point of sentence only and prays that since the appellant
has already undergone approximately three years and six months of jail
incarceration, therefore his sentence be reduced to the period already
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:28813
4 CRA-2924-2024
undergone. It is further submitted that the appellant deserves some leniency
as he has already suffered the ordeal of the trial since 2015 i.e. for a period
of 09 years. It is further submitted that this petition be partly allowed and the
sentence awarded to the petitioner be reduced to the period already
undergone by enhancing the fine amount or as the Court may deem fit.
8. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supports the
impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of this appeal.
9. Having considered the rival submissions and I have gone through
the record.
10. However, 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 evidence. The Court below has well considered the material
available on record, hence, no infirmity is found in the impugned order of
conviction passed by the Court below, accordingly, the same is upheld.
11. The appellant has suffered the ordeal of criminal case since 2015
as well as incarceration of approximately three years and six months of jail
incarceration and also there is no criminal record/antecedents of the
appellant, therefore, this Court finds it expedient to partly allowed this appeal
by affirming the findings given by the trial court by imposing appropriate
compensation for the complainant.
12. So far as the sentence of the appellant is concerned, taking into
consideration the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 2015, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:28813
5 CRA-2924-2024
appellant has already undergone jail sentence of approximately three years
and six months of jail incarceration, this Court is of the view that the
sentence of appellant under Section 328 & 394 of IPC awarded to the
appellant is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing
the fine amount from Rs.500/- to 5,000/- in each section.
13. If the whole fine amount is recovered, out of the total fine
amount, Rs.3,000/- shall be paid to the complainant Lalit under Section
357(3) of Cr.P.C. by the trial Court.
14. The appellant is in jail. After depositing the enhanced fine
amount, he shall be released from the jail, if not required in any other case.
The amount of fine if already deposited, shall be adjusted.
15. If the appellant fails to deposit the fine amount, he will suffer 02
months of simple imprisonment in default and thereafter completion of the
same, he shall be released from jail, if not required in any other case.
16. The order of learned trial Court regarding disposal of the seized
property, if any, stands confirmed.
17. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for necessary
compliance.
18. Pending application, if any, stands closed.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
Vindesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:28813
6 CRA-2924-2024
