Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pratik vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4905
1 CRA-13797-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 24th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 13797 of 2024
PRATIK
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ashish Tiwari - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Virendra Khadav - Govt. Advocate for the respondent / State.
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 415 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 28/11/2024
passed in Sessions Trial No.116/2021 by Additional Sessions Judge, Kukshi,
District Dhar (M.P.), whereby the appellant has been found guilty for the
offence under Sections 420 and 409 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
sentenced to undergo 03 years RI with fine of Rs.3,000/- and 03 years RI
with fine of Rs.3,000/- respectively with usual default stipulation.
2. As per prosecution story, on 03/01/2018 Regional Manager of L&T
Company Rohit Kothari has lodged a complaint with Police Station Madhav
Nagar, Ujjain that appellant, who was posted as Branch Support Officer on
22/12/2015 has committed fraud with the customers and embezzled an
amount of Rs.11,51,789/- deposited for installments. The investigation
ensued and on its completion charge sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4905
2 CRA-13797-2024
Magistrate, Ujjain, who after completing formalities as required under
Section 207 of Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Court of Sessions, who in
turn committed the case of the VII Additional Sessions Judge for trial.
3. Learned trial Court framed charges under Section 420 and 409 of
IPC against the appellant and read over to him. The appellant abjured the
guilt and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to prove its case,
examined as many as 13 witnesses and marked documents Ex.-P/1 to P/37
in evidence. Learned trial Court after completing the examination of accused
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., affording opportunity of explanation to the
circumstances against him and also hearing final arguments passed the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentenced to him as mentioned
hereinabove, which gave rise to this criminal appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant challenged the conviction and
sentence on the ground that the learned trial Court has not properly
appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution. Impugned judgment is
suffering from conjectures and surmises and has been passed ignoring
serious infirmities in the prosecution case. It is submitted that the finding of
guilt arrived at by the learned trial Court, being contrary to law and facts of
the case, is liable to be set aside, therefore, he prays for allowing the appeal
and acquitting the appellant from the charges as found prove by learned trial
Court.
5. In the alternative limb, learned counsel for the appellant submits
that since the applicant has no criminal antecedent; the incident allegedly
took place before 07/06/2017 and appellant is facing trial for last more than
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4905
3 CRA-13797-2024
seven years; and he has suffered jail incarceration of more than 02 years 05
months and 23 days during trial and from the date of judgment i.e.
28/11/2024 he is custody, therefore, prays for reducing the sentence of the
appellant already undergone by him.
6. Per contra, supporting the impugned judgment learned counsel for
the State has opposed the prayer on the ground that impugned judgment of
conviction is based not only on the oral evidence but document evidence is
in support of the prosecution case, which is found favour of the learned trial
Court. Learned trial Court has not committed any error in recording the
conviction and passing the sentence against the appellant. Even though he
does not dispute the period of custody but prays for dismissal of this
criminal appeal as devoid of any substance.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with
care and caution.
8. Complainant Rohit Kothari (PW-1), who has lodged the complaint
has supported the prosecution case by referring documents Ex.-P/1 to P/12.
His statement could not be demolished during lengthy cross-examination.
Gajendra Katariya (PW-2), Piyush Sugandhi (PW-3), Mohammed Wasim
Khan (PW-4), Basant Sharma (PW-6), Himanshu Rathore (PW-7), Santosh
Verma (PW-8), Jitendra Pandey (PW-9), Aashish Kumar Jain (PW-10),
Inspector Vikram Singh Chouhan (PW-11), SI Investigator Daualt Singh
Rawat (PW-12), and Inspector Vijay Sanas (PW-13) have fully supported
the prosecution case. The appellant has not afforded any explanation for
incriminating circumstances, which were put against him during examination
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4905
4 CRA-13797-2024
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with bald defence that he has been falsely
implicated in the case.
9. From careful scrutiny of the documentary and oral evidence on
record, this Court is convinced that the judgment passed by the learned trial
Court is based on due appreciation of evidence and finding of conviction
does not suffer from any infirmity or irregularity factual or legal, therefore,
conviction is upheld by rejecting the contentions raised on behalf of the
appellant.
10. As far as alternative limb of prayer is concerned, this Court finds
it reasonable as appellant has already suffered jail sentence of near about 02
years and 09 months and no criminal antecedents have been proved by the
prosecution against the appellant.
11. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is inclined to reduce the
sentence of the appellant to the period already under gone by him.
Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellant is
affirmed and sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
12. Appellant is in jail, therefore, let a copy of this judgment be sent
to the concerned jail authority by fastest mode for releasing the appellant
forthwith, if he is not required in any other criminal case and subject to
deposit of fine amount as imposed by the trial Court.
13. Let a copy of this judgment along with the record be remitted back
to the concerned trial Court immediately for information and necessary
action.
14. The findings given by the learned trial Court for disposal of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4905
5 CRA-13797-2024
seized items and their disposal in para 52 of the impugned judgment is
hereby affirmed.
15. With the aforesaid, criminal appeal stands partly allowed and
disposed off.
Certified copy as per rules.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Tej
