Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramnaresh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25796
1 CRR-1914-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 17 th OF JUNE, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1914 of 2025
RAMNARESH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ambuj Jain - Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Yogendra Das Yadav - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
With the consent of the parties, this Criminal Revision is finally heard at the
motion hearing stage.
2. This revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 09.04.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Bairasiya, District Bhopal in Criminal Appeal No.56/2023 arising out of judgment
dated 20.09.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Bairasiya, District
Bhopal (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.197/2016 affirming the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court whereby the applicants
have been convicted under Section 381 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that both the applicants
have been convicted by the trial Court and the Appellate Court has affirmed the
sentence of the applicants under Section 381 of the IPC whereas the witness of the
seizure memo Rajeev Kumar Ranjan (PW-1) who is the complainant and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25796
2 CRR-1914-2025
employee of the concerned Construction Company has not supported the
prosecution case and clearly denied that the vibrator machine was recovered from
the possession of the applicants in his presence.
4. Another witness of the seizure memo and recovery Daddan Singh has not
been examined by the prosecution. The police has not filed any document to
establish the ownership of the vibrator such as stock register, bill or cash memo
that the vibrator machine was purchased by the Construction Company.
5. Only the Police Officer R.S. Chouhan (PW-3) has supported the
prosecution case and he has also admitted in the cross-examination that he has not
arranged the identification parade for identification of the vibrator machine and
has not recovered any document that the vibrator machine belongs to the KCC
Company, in that circumstances, this is not a case of conviction but trial and
Appellate Court has committed an error convicting the applicants, hence, the
judgment and order of the trial Court as well as Appellate Court cannot be said to
be as per the law, hence revision be allowed and applicants be acquitted from the
charges.
6. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that there was no need of the
identification, as in FIR, the engine number of the vibrator machine has been
clearly mentioned. FIR was made by the employee of the company, statements of
the police officer are intact on the cross-examination, hence, only on the basis that
the other independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, no
adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution and has submitted that the
revision be dismissed.
7. Heard the parties and perused the record.
8. As per the prosecution, on 07.03.2016, FIR was lodged by Anil Yadav
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25796
3 CRR-1914-2025
(PW-2) that he works in Kuddu Construction Company as a Structure Incharge
and company is carrying the road construction from Vidhisha to Maksoodangarh
and plant is situated at Runaha Road. A vibrator machine engine
No.G.4.D7279006.16k Gamious Company that was kept in front of the office, was
stolen by some unknown person. After the FIR Ex.P/7, the applicants on
09.03.2016 were taken into custody and memorandum of applicant No.2 Sooraj
Nagar was prepared at 9:30 am as Ex.P/1 and memorandum of applicant Ram
Naresh was prepared on 09.03.2016 at 9:40 am as Ex.P/2 and from the joint
possession of the applicants, on 09.03.2016 at 10:30 am vibrator machine was
recovered from the tent of Ram Naresh and Sooraj Nagar.
9. The prosecution witnesses Rajeev Kumar Ranjan (PW-1) and Anil
Kumar Yadav (PW-2) have supported the fact that Ram Naresh was working as a
crane operator and Sooraj Nagar was Contractor. In the year, 2017 vibrator
machine of the company was stolen. Both the applicants were working in the
company. Witness Anil Yadav (PW-2) further stated that he lodged the FIR Ex.P/7
but the prosecution witness Rajeev Kumar Ranjan (PW-1) has clearly denied the
fact that any interrogation was made or anything was recovered from the
possession of the applicants in his presence and denied the memorandum seizure
and arrest of the applicant was made, cross-examination by the prosecution this
witness has clearly denied and stated that on the instruction of the police, he had
signed the papers, he had not read that papers.
10. Other witness Daddan Singh has not been examined as he was not
traceable.
11. Investigating Officer R.S. Chouhan (PW-3) has stated that on
09.03.2016, he has taken into custody to Ram Naresh and Sooraj Nagar and in
their statement they had disclosed that the vibrator machine has kept in tent at
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25796
4 CRR-1914-2025
Amilia. He prepared the memorandum as Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2 and on their instance,
he recovered vibrator machine from the tent and prepared the seizure memo as
Ex.P/3.
12. On this point, I have gone through the record of the trial Court. The
applicants were arrested as per the arrest memo (Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/5) on
09.03.2016 at 10:45 - 10:55, thus, at the time when the memorandum was given,
the applicants were not arrested.
13. Furthermore, the memorandum that the Investigating Officer R.S.
Chouhan (PW-3) has recorded Ex.P/1 was prepared on 09.03.2016 at 9:30 hours
and on that, he had disclosed the fact that where the vibrator machine is kept, thus
just after the interrogation of Sooraj Nagar, it came in the knowledge of the
Investigating Officer R.S. Chouhan (PW-3) that vibrator machine is kept in the
tent and no other fact has been recovered from the statement of Ram Naresh, as
per Ex.P/2 as this fact was already known to Investigating Officer R.S. Chouhan
(PW-3). Thus, Ex.P/2 is hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act.
14. On the point of recovery, recovery has been made from the joint
possession of the applicants and the prosecution has failed to prove that this
cottage/tent was allotted to the applicants or the applicants were having an
exclusive possession of the said cottage/tent from where the article vibrator
machine was recovered.
15. Furthermore, the prosecution has also failed to prove that so-called
vibrator machine was of the ownership of the KCC company as no stock register/
bill voucher has been produced along with the charge-sheet.
16. Looking to the above facts, the Investigating Officer R.S. Chouhan
(PW-3) could not be said to be wholly reliable witness and the trial Court as well
as Appellate Court has not considered all these facts hence, the trial Court as well
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25796
5 CRR-1914-2025
as Appellate Court has committed illegality in convicting the applicants and the
conviction and sentence of the applicants cannot be sustained, hence revision is
allowed.
17. Conviction of applicants is quashed as a result the sentence is also
quashed. The applicant, if not required in any other case, shall be released
forthwith.
18. With the above terms, the Criminal Revision is allowed.
19. A copy of the order be sent to the concerned trial Court as well as
Appellate Court for information and necessary action.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
AT
