Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shabeer Khan vs State Of M.P. on 11 August, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17341
1 CRA-159-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 11th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 159 of 2012
SHABEER KHAN
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Faiz Ahmed Qureshi, Advocate for appellant.
Shri Puran Kumar Kulshreshtha, Public Prosecutor for State.
Shri Utkarsh Tikhe, Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
The present Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') has been preferred against the
impugned judgment dated 09.12.2011 passed by Sessions Judge, District
Guna in Sessions Trial No.238/2010, whereby appellant has been convicted
for offence under Section 393 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and
sentenced to undergo 2 years RI with fine of Rs.500/- with usual default
stipulations.
2. Prosecution story, in short, is that on 2.10.2010 at the time of
incident, complainant Madhu Sharma was purchasing vegetables in market,
at that time, present appellant snatched her mangal sutra which has been
broken and fell down. When she cried then appellant tried to fled away from
spot and anyhow he was caught hold by Deepak, Rammohan and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17341
2 CRA-159-2012
Dharmendra Jaat. Complainant Madhu lodged an FIR at Police Station
Kotwali, District Guna. Accordingly, offence has been registered against the
appellant.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed
before CJM, Guna who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The
Trial Court has framed charges against the appellant for offence under
Sections 393 of IPC.
4. The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded complete innocence.
5. Prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses, while defence did not
examine any witness in his defence.
6. The Trial Court after conclusion of trial and scrutinizing the entire
evidence available on record convicted and sentenced the appellant as
aforementioned. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence,
the appellant has preferred this appeal before this Court.
7. During course of the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant
did not press this criminal appeal on merits and he is only challenging the
final part of the impugned judgment. He confined his arguments only to the
extent of quantum of the sentence only. Appellant is facing trial since 15
long years. He has no criminal past. As per report of Office of
Superintendent District Guna, appellant has served 1 year 6 months and 4
days of jail incarceration out of total awarded two years jail sentence. He has
already suffered 3/4th of the awarded jail sentence. He has deposited the fine
amount as imposed by the Trial Court, therefore, learned counsel prays for
only reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by him.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17341
3 CRA-159-2012
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the
prayer and prays for its rejection by supporting the impugned judgment.
9. From perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that no
illegality has been committed by the learned Court below in convicting the
appellant, hence, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Court
below requires no interference and is hereby maintained.
10. So far as the period of sentence is concerned, looking to the
limited prayer made by the counsel for the appellant and the nature of
offence and the facts that the appellant is facing trial since 15 long years, he
has no criminal past and he has suffered jail incarceration of 1 year 6 months
and 4 days of out of total awarded two years jail sentence and he has already
deposited the fine amount as imposed by the Trial Court, the purpose would
be served in case the jail sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the
period already undergone by him.
11. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The findings of
conviction are hereby maintained with the modification to the extent that the
jail sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already
undergone subject to depositing the fine amount which shall be deposited
before the trial Court concerned within a period of two months (if not already
deposited), failing which the appellant shall suffer jail sentence awarded by
the learned Court below.
12. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged.
13. The order passed by the Trial Court regarding disposal of the
seized property is also hereby affirmed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17341
4 CRA-159-2012
14. All the pending IA, if any, are also disposed of.
15. Let a copy of this order along with record be sent back to the
concerned Trial Court for information and necessary compliance.
16. Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
R
