Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amit Pandey @ Ramgopal Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 July, 2025
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPU R
BEFORE
JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1196 of 2020
AMIT PANDEY @ RAMGOPAL PANDEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Shri Pradeep Naveriya -Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Seema Jaiswal - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 18.07.2025
Pronounced on : 24 .07.2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This criminal appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment,
coming on for pronouncement this day, Justice Achal Kumar Paliwal
pronounced the following:
JUDGMENT
Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure against the judgment dated 26.07.2019 passed by 2nd Additional
Sessions Judge, Beena District- Sagar in ST No. 116/2016, whereby learned trial
Court has convicted appellant under Section 328 (two counts) of IPC and
sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years with fine of Rs. 500/- and Section 379 of IPC
and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 100/-, with default
stipulation.
2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 28.01.2014, Irshad Khan and Amir
Khan were travelling in general coach of A.P. Sampark Kranti Express from
Bhopal to Jhansi. In the train, Amir Khan took water bottle from appellant/accused
and from that water bottle, Amir Khan and Irshad Khan drunk the water and
thereafter they became unconscious. They regained consciousness in Jhansi
hospital and they found that Irshad Khan's one gold chain and Rs. 1800/- and Amir
Khan's Rs. 2000/- were stolen.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that appellant has served
substantive sentence, therefore, he be sentenced with the period already undergone
by him.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has submitted that prosecution has
proved its case by leading cogent evidence & has proved guilt of the appellants
beyond reasonable doubt and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. The
trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, as above, hence
appeal is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused record of the
trial court and grounds taken by the appellants/accused in the appeal memo
minutely and carefully.
Analysis and findings:
6. So far as appellant/accused's conviction for offence under Sections 328 and
379 of IPC is concerned, from deposition of Amir Khan (PW-1), Irshad Khan (PW-
5), Head Constable Lal Pratap Singh (PW-10), Imran Khan (PW-11) and FIR (Ex.
P/11, Ex. P/11A), written report (Ex. P/12), it is clearly evident and there is no
dispute with respect to that on 28.01.2014, Irshad Khan and Amir Khan were
travelling in general coach of A.P. Sampark Kranti Express from Bhopal to Jhansi
and Amir Khan took water bottle from a person who was sitting in the same coach
and drunk the water and thereafter they became unconscious. It is also evident
from aforesaid evidence that Amir Khan and Irshad Khan regained consciousness
in hospital and they found that Amir Khan's purse having Rs. 2,000/- and Irshad
Khan's one gold chain and purse having Rs. 1800/- were missing.
7. Further, from testimony of Amir Khan (PW-1), Dr. Ashish Mishra (PW/4),
Irshad Khan (PW-5), Dr. Sandeep Kumar (PW-6), Lal Pratap Singh (PW-10),
Imran Khan (PW-11), medical document (from Ex. P/5 to Ex. P/10), FIR (Ex. P/11
or P/11A) written report (Ex. P/12), it is also clearly evident and there is no dispute
with respect to that Amir Khan and Irshad Khan were found unconscious in
general coach of A.P. Sampark Kranti Express and they were admitted in Maharani
Laxmi Bai Medical College Hospital, Jhansi. On 28.01.2014, Dr. Ashish Mishra
examined Amir Khan and Dr. Sandeep Kumar examined Irshad Khan. From
testimony of Dr. Ashish Mishra (PW-4) and Dr. Sandeep Kumar (PW-6) and their
medical reports, it is evident that Amir Khan has consumed some poisonous
substance and his condition was not good. As per testimony of Dr. Sandeep Kumar,
Irshad Khan was feeling dizziness etc.
8. Thus, from aforesaid, it is clearly established that Amir Khan and Irshad
Khan were administered some poisonous/stupefying/intoxicant/unwholesome drug
and on account of which they became unconscious and thereafter, when they
regained conscious, they found that their money and gold chain were stolen.
9. Now question arises as to whether aforesaid theft was committed by
appellant/accused. It is correct that Amir Khan has deposed that he cannot identify
the person who had given food articles. Further, it is also evident from testimony
of Tehsildar B.N. Shukla (PW-12) and his TIP report (Ex. P/14) that Amir Khan
did not identify appellant/accused in TIP.
10. But from testimony of Irshad Khan (PW-5), it is evident that Irshad Khan
has clearly identified appellant/accused in the Court during recording of his
testimony. Further, from testimony of Irshad Khan and Tehsildar B.N. Shukla (PW-
12) and TIP report (Ex. P/14) also, it is evident that Irshad Khan has identified
appellant/accused in TIP. Thus, Irshad Khan has identified/recognized
appellant/accused both in the court as well as in TIP. Irshad Khan has been
extensively cross-examined on behalf of the appellant but nothing as such has
come out in his testimony so as to doubt veracity/trustworthiness of Irshad Khan's
testimony on aforesaid facts. Further, perusal of TIP report (Ex. P/14) and B.N.
Shukla and Irshad Khan's testimony reveals that there is nothing in their testimony,
so as to show that TIP is vitiated in any manner whatsoever.
11. It is correct that Irshad Khan has deposed in para 6 of his cross-examination
that it is correct that police had got identified Amit Pandey but no such suggestion
has been given to the witness that police got identified accused Amit Pandey prior
to TIP or further no such specific suggestion has been given to the witness that as
to where police got accused Amit Pandey identified by him. Further, Irshad Khan
has clearly identified appellant/accused in Court's testimony. It is also evident from
testimony of Irshad Khan and Amir Khan that Irshad Khan has sufficient time and
opportunity in train to identify and recognize appellant/accused. Hence, Irshad
Khan's testimony with respect to identification of appellant/accused cannot be
doubted and discarded solely on the ground that police got Amit Pandey identified.
Hence, in this Court's opinion on aforesaid aspects, Irshad Khan is wholly reliable
witness.
12. So far as recovery from appellant/accused is concerned, from deposition of
Farukh Khan (PW-2), Rajkumar Rai (PW-9) and Inspector O.D. Mishra (PW-7)
and appellant/accused's memorandum (Ex. P/1), seizure memo (Ex. P/2), seizure
slip (Ex. P/16), it stands clearly established that in pursuance of information
provided by appellant/accused (memorandum Ex. P/1), one gold chain was
recovered from appellant/accused vide seizure memo Ex. P/2.
13. From testimony of Farukh Khan (PW-2), Rajkumar Rai (PW-9) and
Inspector O.D. Mishra (PW-7), it is evident that they have been extensively cross-
examined on behalf of the appellant/accused but nothing as such has come out in
their cross-examination so as to render them untrustworthy/unreliable or to make
their testimony suspicious in any manner whatsoever. Farukh Khan (PW-2),
Rajkumar Rai (PW-9) and Inspector O.D. Mishra (Pw-7) are wholly reliable
witnesses on memorandum and recovery. Hence, in this Court's opinion in
pursuance of information provided by appellant/accused, recovery of gold chain
from appellant/accused stands clearly established.
14. Further, it is evident from deposition of Irshad Khan (PW-5) and B.N.
Shukla (PW-12) as well as TIP report (Ex. P/13) that Irshad Khan (PW-5) has
identified gold chain recovered from appellant/accused. Thus, recovery of Irshad
Khan's stolen chain from appellant/accused is also clearly established.
15. Further, from testimony of Amir Khan (PW-1), Farukh Khan (PW-2), Irshad
Khan (PW-5), O.D.Mishra (PW-7), Rajkumar Rai (PW-9), B.N. Shukla (PW-12) as
well as appellant/accused's examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., it is evident
that aforesaid prosecution witnesses, especially Irshad Khan (PW-5) and witnesses
of memo of recovery/investigating officer has no reason or motive whatsoever to
falsely implicate appellant/accused. There is nothing on record to show that
aforesaid witnesses were acquainted with appellant/accused prior to the
incident/prior to recovery. Thus, in the instant case, prosecution witnesses have no
reason to falsely implicate appellant/accused.
16. Thus, from discussion in the forgoing paras, in this Court's opinion, from
evidence on record, it stands clearly established that at alleged date, time and
place, appellant/accused administered some intoxicant/unwholesome drug to
complainant Irshad Khan and Amir Khan through food items (water etc.) and on
account of which, complainant became unconscious and thereafter, appellant took
away complainants gold chain and Rs. 38000/- and thereby committed theft of
aforesaid.
17. There is nothing on record to show that appellant has been falsely implicated
in the case. In the instant case, ingredients constituting offence under Sections 328
& 379 of IPC are clearly made out.
18. Hence, learned trial Court has rightly convicted appellant for the offence
under Sections 328 (2 counts) & 379 of IPC. Findings recorded by the trial Court
are well supported by evidence on record. No interference is required in the same.
Hence, appellant's conviction for the offene under Sections 328 (2 counts) & 379
of IPC is hereby affirmed.
19. So far as sentence is concerned, learned trial Court has sentenced the
appellant for the offence under Section 328 (2 counts) of IPC with RI for 7 years
and under Section 379 of IPC with RI for three years with fine with default
stipulation.
20. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant be sentenced with
the period already undergone by him.
21. It appears that appellant/accused is a habitual offender and he has
committed identical offence and with respect to aforesaid, Criminal Appeal No.
915/2020 is pending before this Court, wherein also appellant stand convicted and
sentenced for offence under Section 328 and section 379 of IPC. This offence has
been committed in a running train.
22. Hence, in view of aforesaid, appellant cannot be sentenced with the period
already undergone by him but sentence of 7 years appears to be excessive.
Therefore, ends of justice would be served, if the appellant is sentenced under
Section 328 (2 counts) of IPC with RI for five years for each offence.
23. Hence, appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed and appellant is
sentenced under Section 328 ( 2 counts) of IPC with RI five years for each offence
and with fine as imposed by the trial Court with default stipulation. Sentence of
appellant for the offence under Section 379 of IPC as imposed by the trial Court is
affirmed. Substantive sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
24. Appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed to the extent as indicated
above and disposed of accordingly.
25. Let a copy of this order be sent forthwith to the learned trial Court and
concerned jail for information and necessary action.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
L.R.
