Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chironji vs State Of M.P. on 24 July, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15481
1 CRR-352-2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 24th OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 352 of 2007
CHIRONJI
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Santosh Kumar Rajput - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Mohit Shivhare - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this revision under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C
against the judgment dated 19.04.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Guna in
Criminal Appeal No.384 of 2006 affirming the judgment dated 18.08.2006
passed by learned JMFC, Guna in Criminal Case No.361 of 2004, whereby
the petitioner has been convicted under Section 380 of IPC and sentenced to
suffer six months RI with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.
2. As per the prosecution story, in the intervening night of 26th and
27th of May, 2004, complainant Ramesh Chandra, who is owner of the
house situated at village Sirsi, went to sleep after closing the door. On the
next morning, when he woke up, he found that door was open and four bags
of mustered and 20 kg of sweet oil, total worth Rs.4,800/- have been stolen
by some unknown persons. He lodged a FIR at Police Station Sirsi, District
Guna. Accordingly, offence has been registered against the appellant.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15481
2 CRR-352-2007
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed
before JMFC, Guna, who framed the charges under Sections 380 and 457 of
IPC. The accused abjured his guilt and pleaded complete innocence by
stating that he has been falsely implicated in the case. The Trial Court has
examined as many as 6 witnesses, while the defence did not examine any
witness. The Trial Court after completion of trial, convicted
petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC and
sentenced to suffer six months RI with fine of Rs.500/-, and the Appellate
Court has affirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. Being
aggrieved by the same, this revision has been preferred by the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged during the course of
arguments that he is not challenging the finding of Trial Court so far as
conviction of petitioner/accused under Section 380 of IPC is concerned. The
petitioner is facing trial since last 21 years. The petitioner/accused has
already undergone jail sentence from 19.04.2007 to 28.05.2007 (40 days)
during trial and during appellate stage, he remained in custody from
08.07.2014 to 18.10.2014 (about 3 months, 10 days), total about 4 months
and 20 days and has deposited entire amount of fine before the Trial Court.
Hence, prayed that while awarding sentence, a lenient view may be adopted
and he may be sentenced to the sentence already undergone by him.
5. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case as stated
above and the recorded evidence, it is concluded that the findings recorded
by both the Courts below in convicting the petitioner accused under Section
380 of IPC are based on proper reasoning. Hence, conviction of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15481
3 CRR-352-2007
petitioner/accused is hereby confirmed. So far as the sentence awarded to the
petitioner-accused is concerned, he has already undergone jail sentence of
about 40 days during trial and during appellate stage, he remained in custody
for about 3 months, 10 days, total about 4 months, 20 days and has deposited
the fine amount as imposed by the Trial Court. Hence, the prayer made by
the petitioner appears to be reasonable. It is, therefore, ordered that sentence
of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him in jail
with fine amount as awarded by learned Trial Court and affirmed by the
Appellate Court.
6. The petitioner is on bail, therefore, his bail bonds and surety bonds
shall stand discharged.
7. With the above modification, this criminal revision is partly allowed
and disposed of.
8. A copy of this order be sent to the concerning Court with records
for necessary compliance.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Abhi
