Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Burman (C.O. Dt. 07/10/2025 ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 November, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:57378
1 CRA-2161-2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 13th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2161 of 2006
SANJAY BURMAN (C.O. DT. 07/10/2025 APPELLANT NO. 1. APPEAL
DISMISSED AS ABATED) AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Koshta - Proxy Counsel for appellant Manish Thakur.
Shri Chandrashekhar Upadhyay - Panel Lawyer for the State.
ORDER
Appellant No. 1-Sanjay Barman has expired and as per order-sheet
dated 07.10.2025 by Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench of this Court the appeal was
abated as regards appellant No. 1 Sanjay Barman. However, Registry has
not taken appropriate action pursuant to the order dated 07.10.2025.
Registry is directed to do the needful as per order dated 7.10.2025.
2. Appellant No. 2 Manish Thakur Thakur is present along with his
proxy counsel Shri Sanjay Koshta- Advocate.
3. Record from the Court below is already received. The case is fixed
for final hearing. With the consent of the parties, the case is finally heard
and disposed of as below:
4. Learned II Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Gadarwara,
District Narsinghpur in Session Trial No. 79/2005 - State of M.P. through
Police Station, Kareli v. Sanjay Burman and another vide judgment dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:57378
2 CRA-2161-2006
04.11.2006 convicted both the accused persons under Sections 361 but
acquitted them from charges under Sections 366 and 376 I.P.C. On perusal
of judgment, it is seen that charges regarding the rape were made against the
appellant No. 1-Sanjay Burman who has expired as indicated above in this
order. Manish Thakur at best could have felicitated the crime of abduction.
5. On considering the custody period, as per certificate issued under
Section 428 Cr.P.C, the accused has remained in custody for about 1 year, 3
months and 24 days. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits
that although he has filed this appeal against the judgment including
conviction and sentence but he is withdrawing this appeal against
conviction. He seeks reduction of sentence.
6. Learned counsel for the State has no objection if prayer of the
learned counsel for the applicant is allowed.
7. Since appeal was initially filed on merit, therefore, this Court
perused the record of the case including the statement of P.W. 1 Dr. Kalwani,
P.W.-2 Prosecutrix, P.W.-3 Dr. Narmada Shukla, P.W.-4 Pitambar Lakhera,
P.W.-5 family member of the prosecutrix, P.W. - 6 family member of the
prosecutrix, P.W. 7 family member of the prosecutrix, P.W. -8 Police Officer
Vijay Singh before whom the prosecutrix was recovered, P.W.-9 B.D.
Tripathi Police Officer and Defence Witness Chhuttan D.W.-1 and on
perusal of record it is seen that looking to the Dastyabi Panchnama and other
documents conviction under Section 363/34 of the present appellant is well
justified. Accordingly appeal against conviction is rejected.
8 . Considered the quantum of punishment. For an offence under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:57378
3 CRA-2161-2006
Section 363 I.P.C an accused is punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to 7 years or fine.
9. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact
that this appeal is of the year 2006, the same is partly allowed on the
quantum of sentence and appellant Minish Thakur is convicted for the period
for which he has remained in judicial custody. However, the amount of fine
is kept intact. It is submitted by learned counsel for appellant that fine has
already been deposited. Learned Trial Court has recorded this fact in the
order-sheet dated 4.11.2006.
10. Accordingly the appeal stands allowed and disposed of to the
extent indicated above.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
VKT
