Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mithun vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34487
1 CRR-4756-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4756 of 2025
MITHUN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Lokesh Sakle -Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Jayesh Yadav -GA appearing on behalf of Advocate General[r-1].
Reserved on 19.11.2025
Pronounced on 26.11.2025.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
This criminal revision under section 438 of BNSS, 2023 is preferred
being aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.07.2018 in criminal appeal
No.84/2015 by Ist ASJ, Rajgarh (Biaora), M.P arising out of judgment dated
31.03.2015 in criminal case No.187/2010 by JMFC, Rajgarh, whereby the
present revision petitioner has been convicted under section 379 of the IPC
and sentenced to one year RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation
of 4 months RI.
2. Facts in brief are that present revision petitioner was prosecuted
under section 379 of the IPC for committing theft of motor cycle No.MP-39-
B-1027 on 21.11.2008 from the compound of district hospital, Rajgarh from
the possession of Mohd. Yusuf Qureshi (PW/3) and a crime no.98/09 was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34487
2 CRR-4756-2025
registered at police station, Rajgarh on 18.03.2009.
3. To bring home the guilt, prosecution examined Mohd. Yusuf
Qureshi as PW/3, Constable Irfan No.183 as PW/1, Constable Ramakant
Upadhyaya as PW/2, ASI Amruta Solanki as PW/4, ASI Devilal as PW/5,
Inspector V.K.Singh as PW/6, Rajeev Saxena, SDO(P) as PW/7..
4. In examination under section 313 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 all the facts
and circumstances were either denied or ignorance was expressed regarding
the facts and circumstances appeared against him in prosecution evidence.
His defence is of false implication.
5. Appreciating the evidence, trial court as well as appellate court
convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para-1 of the
judgment. Challenging the conviction as well as sentence, this revision
petition was preferred with a delay of 2528 days on the ground that the
prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case. There is no corroboration of
the prosecution story by the independent witnesses. The trial court as well as
appellate court committed error in ignoring the material omissions and
contradictions in the prosecution evidence. The sentence awarded by the
trial court and affirmed by the appellate court is harsh considering the age of
the revision petitioner.
6. The delay of 2525 days condoned vide order dated 10.11.2025
and considering the period of custody the revision was heard finally at the
stage of motion hearing with the consent of parties.
7. Counsel for the State has opposed the revision petition and
submitted that no ground for interference either in conviction or sentence is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34487
3 CRR-4756-2025
made out.
8. Perused the record.
9. There is no cross examination of Mohd. Yusuf Qureshi (PW/3)
that his motorcycle bearing registration no.MP-39-B-1027 was stolen on
21.11.2008 at 12 p.m from the compound of district hospital, Rajgarh. There
is no infirmity in the testimony of Inspector V.K.Singh (PW/6), Ramakant
Upadhyaya (PW/2), Constable Irfan No.183 (PW/1) that on 07.03.2010
during routine checking within the jurisdiction of police station Karanwas,
district Rajgarh the motor cycle was recovered from the revision
petitioner/accused and thereafter he was put to interrogation and a
memorandum Ex.P/1-C was prepared on 08.03.2010 on the information of
present revision petitioner and he gave the information regarding a motor
cycle and that motorcycle was recovered on the information of Mithun from
the possession of Pappu Jadhav vide Ex.P/5-C and that motorcycle was found
to be the motorcycle that was stolen from the possession of Mohd. Yusuf
Qureshi.
10. There is no explanation regarding knowledge about the
motorcycle in the possession of Pappu Jadhav. Nothing material has been
brought on record that suggests false implication of the present revision
petitioner. Accordingly, no illegality has been committed by the trial court as
well as appellate court in convicting the appellant under section 379 of the
IPC. The sentence is also proportionate, hence no interference is called for in
the impugned judgment. Thus, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is
hereby dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34487
4 CRR-4756-2025
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
hk/
