Ajay Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 777 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ajay Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 May, 2025

Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal

Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           AT JABALPUR
                                 BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
                     ON THE 14TH OF MAY, 2025
             CRIMINAL REVISION No.6046 of 2024
                                   Ajay Singh
                                      Vs.
                           State of madhya pradesh

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance :
        Shri Suyash Tripathi- counsel for the applicant.
        Shri Pradeep Gupta, G.A for respondent/State..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      ORDER

This revision petition under Section 442 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed assailing the appeal judgment dated 19.09.2024 (Annexure-A/1) passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shahdol, District Shahdol (MP) in Criminal Appeal No.115/2023 (Ajay Singh Vs. State of M.P.) whereby learned Appellate Court partly allowing the appeal modified the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.11.2023 (Annexure- A/2) passed by learned C.J.M Shahdol, District Shahdol (MP) in RCT No.109/2020 (State of M.P. Vs. Ajay Singh) and convicted the applicant under section 379 of IPC and sentenced him for R.I. 03 years and fine of Rs.1000/- instead of offence under section 457 and 380 of IPC.

2. As per the prosecution story, on 24.01.2020 complainant Gyanendra Prasad Tiwari (Urmalia) lodged a report before P.S.

CRR No.6046-2024

Kotwali District Shahdol stating that he and his son Navneet used to park his Hundai Accent car bearing registration No.MP- 18-CA0225 in front of house of Karan Singh. There is a CCTV camera installed in front of Karan Singh's house. Karan Singh used to take his car alongwith his son for his use. On 21.10.2020 at around 10 P.M. his son Navneet parked the car in front of Karan Singh's house and also hang the key in his house. On 22.01.2020 at around 8.00 A.M. when Navneet went to take the key, he did not find the same. Navneet put another key in the car and went to Jabalpur. On 23.01.2020 at around 10 P.M. Navneet again parked the car in front of Karan Singh's house. On 24.01.2023 at around 4.45 A.M. Karan Singh made a call and informed Gyanendra Prasad that car is not there as the same has been stolen. Thereafter Gyanendra Prasad informed his son Navneet about the incident. When despite search car could not be taced, F.I.R was registered.

3. On completion of investigation, applicant/accused was charge-sheeted for commission of offence under Sections 457 and 380 IPC. Charges were framed by the learned CJM Shahdol District Shahdol.

4. After recording evidence of the parties and hearing them, learned C.J.M found the prosecution case proved in respect of offence under Section 457 and 380 of IPC and convicted & sentenced him as stated above in preceding paragraph No.1. An appeal was preferred by the applicant/accused before the Court of Sessions and learned Sessions Judge, Shahdol, District Shahdol partly allowed the appeal and modified the judgment of

CRR No.6046-2024

conviction and order of sentence passed by learned C.J.M Shahdol. Hence, this criminal revision.

5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicant/accused recorded under Section 379 of IPC by the appellate court. It is submitted that only 03 year sentence and fine of Rs.1000/- has been awarded to the applicant and out of that, he has already suffered approximately a period of more than one year and 11 months so far. Therefore, it is prayed that jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period of jail sentence already undergone by him by enhancing the fine amount.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State has supported the findings given by the two Courts below and has prayed for dismissal of the revision.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the findings recorded by the Courts below & the material available on record.

8. Learned Appellate Court as well as learned JMFC have duly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and have rightly come to the conclusion that applicant has committed offence under Section 379 of IPC. There are no reasons to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Court below. Therefore, conviction of applicant for commission of offence under Section 379 of IPC as recorded by the C.J.M and affirmed by learned Sessions Judge being just and proper is hereby confirmed.

CRR No.6046-2024

9. As far as, reduction of jail sentence of applicant is concerned, it is apparent that applicant has already suffered approximately a period of more than one year and 11 months as substantive jail sentence, therefore, I am of the view that it would be just and proper, if jail sentence awarded to applicant is reduced/modified to the period already undergone by him so far by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.5,000/- which shall be deposited by the applicant within a period of four weeks from today.

10. Therefore, having taken into consideration the above submissions and others facts & circumstances of the case, it appears just and proper to modify the sentence. Therefore, applicant's sentence of RI for 03 years for commission of offence under Section 379 of IPC is modified and applicant/accused is sentenced to the period of jail sentence already undergone by him so far by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.5000/- to be deposited by the applicant within four weeks from today

11. Consequently, this criminal revision is partly allowed with the aforesaid modification in the sentence.

12. The order of the Trial Court with regard to the disposal off the property is affirmed.

13. Registry/trial Court is directed to prepare super-session warrant/release warrant and to send the same to the Superintendent of jail/Jail authorities concerned with a direction that if applicant/accused is not required in any other case, he be released in this case forthwith. However, it is clarified that his

CRR No.6046-2024

release shall be subject to depositing of fine amount as quantified by this Court within a period of four weeks from today. In case fine amount is not deposited by him, he has to serve the entire jail sentence of three years as awarded by the learned trial Court with default stipulations.

14. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.

15. Let records of the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court along with copy of this order be sent down to Court concerned for information and necessary compliance through the Sessions Judge, Shahdol (MP).

(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL) JUDGE

MKL

Date: 2025.05.15 11:14:09 +05'30'