Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sishupal @ Rahul Gujar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35507
1 CRA-1444-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
ON THE 31st OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1444 of 2024
SISHUPAL @ RAHUL GUJAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Kuldeep Singh Rajput - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Santosh Yadav - Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
The appellant has filed the present Criminal Appeal under Section 374
(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 12.07.2023 passed by First
Additional Session Judge, Pipariya, District Narmadapuram in S.T.
No.67/2022 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 379, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo 2 years R.I., 5 Years R.I., 5 Years R.I. and 2 Years R.I. with fine of
Rs.1000/- each.
2. As per prosecution story, on 24.05.2012 at about 08:00 PM when
complainant Lakhan (PW-1) has parked his motorcycle before the coaching
class than some unknown person has stolen his motorcycle after that he has
informed to police and during the investigation police team has recovered the
motorcycle from the possession of the present appellant. On the basis of this,
the police registered the aforesaid offence against the appellant.
3. During investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35507
2 CRA-1444-2024
Documents were recovered and after completion of investigation, charge-
sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pipariya, District
Narmadapuram who committed the case to the Sessions Court.
4. The prosecution has examined total 8 witnesses namely the
Lakhan, (PW-1), Anuj (PW-2), Sourabh Tiwari (PW-3), Ajay Singh (PW-4),
R.C. Khatarkar (PW-5), Bisna Bai (PW-6), Leela Bai (PW-7) and L.N.
Damahe (PW-8). The appellant abjured his guilt and took a plea that he is
innocent.
5. 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. 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 has not assailed the finding part of judgment.
He confined his argument on the point of sentence only. Counsel for the
appellant assures that the appellant will not involve in such criminal
activities in future. He also submitted that the appellant has already suffered
more than 3 years custody period. Therefore, it is prayed that this appeal be
partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the appellant be reduced by
enhancing the fine amount.
7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supports the
impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of this appeal. It is further
submitted that the learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgement
after considering each and every circumstances of the case and convicted the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35507
3 CRA-1444-2024
appellant rightly.
8. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the
record, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be
just and proper. Nevertheless, the appellant has not impugned the merits of
conviction and confined his arguments as to sentencing of the appellant, but
still this appellate Court is of the view to examine the sanctity of conviction.
9. The learned trial Court has not committed any error in appreciation
of evidence available on record and correctly found that the case of the
prosecution is well supported by the witnesses and documentary testimony.
The procedure was well followed by the prosecution and the witnesses of
prosecution have profoundly supported the prosecution case. 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 and accordingly, the same is upheld.
10. So far as the sentence part of appellant is concerned, it appears that
the appellant has already suffered more than three years custody period and
also learned counsel assures that the appellant shall not indulge himself in
the offence of same nature in future, this Court finds it expedient to partly
allow this appeal by reducing the sentence of appellant to the period already
undergone by enhancing the fine amount.
11. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the sentence of the
appellant for the offence punishable under Section 467 and 468 of IPC is
reduced from 5 Years R.I. to 3 Years, 4 Months R.I. So far as sentence for
the offence punishable under Section 379 and 471 of IPC are concerned,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35507
4 CRA-1444-2024
same are hereby maintained. The fine amount awarded by the Trial Court is
also maintained.
12. After completion of this sentence modified by this Court, and if
the appellant is not required in any other case, and provided that he deposits
the imposed fine or compensation amount, he shall be released. In case of
failure to deposit the fine or compensation amount, the appellant shall
undergo one month of simple imprisonment under each section.
13. The judgment of learned trial Court regarding disposal of the
seized property stands affirmed.
14. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for
necessary compliance.
15. Pending application, if any shall be closed.
16. With the aforesaid, the present appeal stands partly allowed and
disposed off.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE
Praveen
