Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandeep vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26056
1 CRR-2521-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 18th OF JUNE, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2521 of 2025
SANDEEP
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sumit Kumar Tiwari - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Akshay Namdeo - 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 21.05.2025 passed by Fifth Additional Sessions
Judge, Narsinghpur, District Narsinghpur in Criminal Appeal No.175/2024
arising out of judgment dated 11.07.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate
First Class Narsinghpur, District Narsinghpur (M.P.) in RCT No.333/2023
affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the
trial court whereby the applicant has been convicted under Section 411 of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year with fine of
Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26056
2 CRR-2521-2025
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is delay
in lodging the FIR. The incident had taken place on 18.04.2023 and FIR was
lodged on 23.04.2023 and recovery was made on 24.04.2023, which shows
that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case.
4. Investigating Officer Ramesh Niware (PW-6) in his cross-
examination has admitted that the applicant was already in custody in
another case and on his memo, the recovery had been made, the independent
witness Jitendra Prajapati (PW-3) is a pocket witness of the police and
Sheikh Kamil (PW-4) has not supported the prosecution regarding
memorandum of co-accused and recovery of the stolen property from the
possession of this applicant. The trial Court as well as Appellate Court has
not considered these aspects and convicted the applicant for the offence
punishable under Section 411 of the IPC.
5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application and
submitted that there is a cogent evidence and the prosecution has proved the
guilt of the applicant beyond reasonable doubt, no interference is called for,
hence, the revision be dismissed.
6. Heard the parties and perused the record.
7. No doubt, FIR was lodged on 23.04.2023 alleging that the motor-
cycle bearing registration No. MP-49-MQ-5461 was stolen from Tindni road
field of the complainant and motor-cycle was searched and when it was not
found, FIR was made. This fact has been clearly stated by Aparna Yadav
(PW-1) and Praveen Yadav (PW-2).
8. Jitendra Prajapati (PW-3) independent witness has supported the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26056
3 CRR-2521-2025
prosecution case, it has been brought on record that he was also witness in
some NDPS cases but it has not been alleged that he is dependent on the
police or is source of his livelihood is being the witness of the police. Only
on the basis that in some cases, he has become the prosecution witness, does
not make him pocket witness.
9. Shiekh Kamil (PW-4) has though not supported the prosecution but
has stated that he along with Jitendra Prajapati (PW-3) went to the police
station, thus, the statement of Jitendra Prajapati (PW-3) are being supported
by this witness also.
10. Investigating Officer Ramesh Niware (PW-6) has clearly stated
that on the information provided by the co-accused Arjun, he recovered the
motor-cycle from the possession of this applicant and the applicant has
neither explained by the cross-examination that how the motor-cycle came in
his possession or in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. also
the applicant has not explained in what circumstances, he got the possession
of the stolen motor-cycle. Hence, the stolen motor-cycle has been recovered
from the possession of the applicant then it shall be presumed either he is
thief or with dishonest intention purchased the stolen property.
11. Looking to all these facts, trial as well as First Appellate Court has
rightly convicted the applicant, hence, no case for interference is made out
and there is no illegality, impropriety is found in the judgment and sentence,
hence revision being devoid of merit is dismissed.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26056
4 CRR-2521-2025
AT
