Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26550
1 CRR-1594-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 19 th OF JUNE, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1594 of 2025
JITENDRA SONI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Anoop Kumar Saxena - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Pramod Kumar Pandey - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This Criminal Revision under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred against the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.04.2025 passed by Second
Additional Sessions Judge, Nowgaon, District-Chhatarpur (M.P.) in Criminal
Appeal No.26/2022 arising out of judgment dated 23.07.2022 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nowgaon, District-Chhatarpur (M.P.) in R.C.T.
No.503/2012 affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed
by the trial court whereby the applicant has been convicted under Section 380 of
IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years with fine of Rs.500/- and Section
457 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.500/- with
default stipulations.
2. The prosecution case before the trial Court was that in the intervening
night of 10/11.06.2012, the complainant Ajay Pal Singh, after taking meal, went
to sleep as next day, he had to go Jhansi to attend the ceremony and his wife put
his cloths and gold ornament, gold necklace, four bangles, mangalsutra, two gold
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26550
2 CRR-1594-2025
rings, a gold Bendi, two silver chains and five thousand in cash in suitcase. At
about 01:45-02:00 am, they heard the noise of Chor-Chor. When he came out, he
saw that Kailash Dwivedi caught hold a thief who was absconding co-accused
Sunil Soni and told him that Sunil Soni and Jitendra Soni were on his roof where
they were taking out gold and silver ornaments from the suitcase which they had
stolen from his house. Kailash Dwivedi had seen the incident from his house and
made noise. Both the thieves jumped from the roof. This applicant Jitendra Soni
succeeded in running away but Sunil Soni was caught hold. F.I.R. was lodged on
11.06.2012 at 10:00 am in Police Station Harpalpur, District Chhatarpur where the
Crime No.87/2012 under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC was registered and spot
map was prepared. From the co-accused's possession, gold necklace, bangles and
two silver chains were recovered. On 27.07.2012, this applicant was arrested and
from his possession, a gold Bendi and two gold rings were recovered and seized
and charge sheet was submitted.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there was no
identification parade regarding this applicant and all the materials were recovered
from the possession of Sunil Soni who was caught hold by the complainant and
his neighbour. The identification of the property as per Ex.P-4 is vitiated as the
property was shown to the complainant prior to identification and no document
has been submitted regarding purchasing of gold ornaments but the trial court and
the appellate court had not considered these aspects and committed illegality while
passing the sentence. In alternatively, it is submitted that the applicant is in
custody and his jail sentence be limited to the period already undergone.
4. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial
court as well as appellate court and submitted that there is no substance in the
revision. Hence, this revision be dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26550
3 CRR-1594-2025
5. Heard the parties and perused the record.
6. I have minutely observed the statement of Kailash Narayan Dwivedi
(PW-2) who has clearly stated that in the intervening night of the incident, he was
sleeping on the roof of his house. He heard the noise of Chor-Chor and when he
saw that two boys were running. He jumped from his roof and caught hold one
boy Sunil Soni but not this applicant Jitendra Soni. The residence of that locality
gathered and caught hold the thief and the thief, who was caught hold. His gold
and silver ornaments were stolen.
7. The witness Ajay Pal Singh (PW-1) has stated that on 10.06.2012 at
about 02:00 am, he was sleeping on his courtyard. The accused persons, after
going on the roof, came down through the stairs. They had lifted a suitcase in
which there were gold and silver ornaments and cash amount of Rs.5,500/-. The
stolen ornaments were a necklace, gold mangalsutra , four gold bangles, two gold
rings, one Bendi, two pairs of silver anklet and Rs.5,500/- in cash and after
stealing the property, the applicant and co-accused were distributing that stolen
property on his roof. Kailash was lying on his roof when the accused persons
were running away, Kailash jumping from his roof caught hold one accused Sunil
and from his possession, one necklace, three bangles, one pair of silver anklet
were recovered and this applicant Jitendra Soni ran away. Report was lodged. He
identified his article in identification parade. He has submitted the stolen property
before the Court. Rings were marked as Annexure A-3 & A-4 and Bendi was
marked as Annexure A-5.
8. The witness Suman Singh (PW-5) has also supported regarding theft and
stolen article. She has also submitted the ornaments during the examination before
the Court Articles A-1 to A-6 and denied the fact that the articles produced before
the Court were not stolen.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26550
4 CRR-1594-2025
9. Thus, from the statements of these witnesses, it is clear that on
intervening night of 10/11.06.2012, gold ornaments and cash amount were stolen
by two persons and regarding the identity, it is clear that one person was Sunil
Soni and he has disclosed to the complainant and nearby persons of the locality
that another person was Jitendra Soni.
10. The witness Pramod Yadav (PW-6) has stated that this applicant was
arrested before him and from his possession, a gold Bendi, two gold rings and
articles like mangalsutra were recovered. On the instance of the accused, Police
prepared the memorandum and seizure memo. In the detailed cross-examination,
no fact has been brought on record by which it can be disbelieved that he is the
interested witness or making false statement.
11. Investigating Officer Prakash Sen (PW-10) has also submitted that on
27.07.2012, he had taken the memorandum of this applicant. On his disclosure,
two gold rings and a gold Bendi were recovered from the house of this applicant.
12. The articles recovered from the applicant were produced before the
Court and the applicant has not claimed that this property belongs to him.
13. Though, the prosecution witness Virendra Raikwar (PW-7) has stated
that he arranged the identification parade regarding the identification of the stolen
property but this is vitiated as Ajay Pal Singh (PW-1) has admitted in his cross-
examination that Police recovered the gold ornaments from Jitendra Soni which
was shown him at the Police Station and it was weighted. After that, identification
parade was organised in Police Station where he has identified his articles. Thus,
the identification of the property becomes vitiated.
14. But from the statement of prosecution, it is clear that two persons were
involved in the theft. One person co-accused Sunil Soni was caught hold by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26550
5 CRR-1594-2025
complainant and neighbours and this applicant ran away from the spot. Sunil Soni
told to public that Jitendra was the other person. When Jitendra was arrested, the
stolen property was recovered from his possession. The offence was committed in
the night and lurking house-trespass by the applicant to commit the offence of
theft and theft was committed on the residential house of the complainant. Hence,
trial court has rightly convicted the applicant for the offence under Sections 457
and 380 of IPC.
15. Looking to the Act, the sentence could not be said to be excessive and
disproportionate. Hence, in the order of the trial court as well as appellate court,
no perversity, illegality or impropriety is found. Hence, this Criminal Revision
being devoid of merits is dismissed.
16. With the copy of this order, the record of the trial court as well as
appellate court be sent back.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
HK
