Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ankush @ Sahil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:57571
1 CRA-7951-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 13 th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7951 of 2023
ANKUSH @ SAHIL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Harpreet Singh Gupta - amicus curiae for appellant.
Ms Rashi Dua - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This appeal has been filed by the appellant - Ankush @ Sahil
under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 11.05.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Bhopal in Session Trial No.479/2014 whereby the appellant has been convicted
under Sections 379 and 403 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years
and fine of Rs.5000/- and R.I.. for two years and fine of Rs.3000/- with default
stipulations.
2. In brief case of the prosecution case is that on 29.03.2013 complainant
Abhishek Chauhan R/o Lucknow was travelling from Bangalore to Lucknow by
Train No.15024 Yashwantpur-Gorakhpur Express in Coach No.B-3 at Seat No.60.
On 30/3/2013 at 09.05 a.m. at Bhopal Railway Station, complainant's black bag
containing a Laptop of Dell Company, an iPod of Apple Company, charger and
medicine was stolen by some unknown person. On the basis of written complaint
submitted by complainant, FIR at Crime No.128/13 was registered for the offence
u/s 379 IPC. During investigation statements of witnesses were recorded. On the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:57571
2 CRA-7951-2023
basis of memorandum statement of accused persons, namely Ankush @ Sahil and
Mukesh Pawar recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, aforesaid articles
were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/2 and Ex.P/4 and they were arrested vide
arrest memo Ex.P/5 and Ex.P/6 respectively.
3. After completion of investigation, after adding Section 414 of IPC charge-
sheet was filed in the court of Special Railway Magistrate, Bhopal, which, on its
turn, committed the case to the court of Sessions and from where it was received
by the trial court for trial.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that the learned Trial Court while acquitting
co-accused Mukesh Pawar for commission of offence under Section 413 of IPC
has convicted him for commission of offence under Section 414 of IPC vide
separate judgment dated 31.05.2019. By the aforesaid judgment, he has been
sentenced to 12 days' imprisonment and fine of Rs.6,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of two months.
5. In the instant case, the learned trial Judge on going through the evidence
available in the charge sheet framed charges against appellant, which he denied
and requested for the trial.
6. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 05
witnesses, which are Constable Girja Shankar Sharma (PW-1), Ashok @
Bhaiyalal (PW-2), Head Constable Umashankar Tripathi (PW-3), complainant
Abhishek Chouhan (PW-4), ASI- Mohd. Salim Khan (PW-5) and placed Ex.P/1
to P/16 the documents on record.
7. The accused/appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded complete innocence.
The defence of accused persons is of false implication.
8. The learned trial Judge after appreciating and marshalling the evidence came
to hold that the charges under Sections 379 and 403 of IPC are proved against
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:57571
3 CRA-7951-2023
the appellant and eventually convicted him and passed the sentence as mentioned
in para 1 of this judgment. In this manner, the present appeal has been filed by
appellant.
9. At the outset, learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellant/accused
submitted that he does not wish to challenge the conviction of the appellant for the
aforesaid offence. As regards sentence, it is submitted by learned counsel for the
appellant that the present appellant has suffered around 10 months incarceration
so far as he remained in custody for 70 days during trial and thereafter he
remained in custody for more than seven months; he was 20 years of age at the
time of commission of offence; he has been facing agony of trial since 2013 for a
period more than 12 years, he has no criminal antecedents and he remained on
bail during trial but he never misused the liberty so granted. Therefore, it is
prayed that sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period already
undergone.
10. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment but he has
no objection on deciding the appeal on the point of sentence.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the
record, it is found that trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record
and rightly convicted the appellant under Section 379 and 403 of IPC, hence,
conviction of the appellant under Section 379 and 403 of IPC needs no
interference.
13. As regards sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case;
the allegation levelled against him that he committed theft of complainant's black
bag containing a Laptop of Dell Company, an iPod of Apple Company and
charger; the age of accused/ appellant as he was 20 years of age at the time of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:57571
4 CRA-7951-2023
commission of offence; contention of the counsel that accused/appellant has no
criminal antecedents and he was on bail during the trial and the pendency of this
appeal but he never misused the liberty so granted, this Court is of the view
that the ends of justice would meet if while maintaining the fine amounts as
imposed by the learned Trial Court under Sections 379 and 403 of IPC, the jail
sentence of appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him,
Accordingly, while affirming the conviction of the appellant under Sections 379
and 403 of IPC, jail sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already
undergone by him and the fine amounts as imposed by the learned Trial Court
under Sections 379 and 403 of IPC are maintained, which shall be deposited by
him, if not already deposited, within a period of two months from today, failing
which the appellant will have to suffer the sentence as awarded by the trial Court.
14. The appellant is on bail, his bail bond shall stand discharged.
15. The order of the Trial Court pertaining to disposal of the property is hereby
affirmed.
16. Let record of the Trial Court along with copy of this order be sent back to
the concerned Trial Court for information and necessary compliance.
17. With the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of.
1 8 . This Court extends thanks to Shri Harpreet Singh Gupta for the valuable
assistance rendered by him by arguing the case as amicus curiae.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
DV
