Deepak @ Nannu Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 January, 2026

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1853




                                                                1                            CRA-6086-2020
                              IN        THE   HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT JABALPUR
                                                          BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
                                                  ON THE 8 th OF JANUARY, 2026
                                               CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6086 of 2020
                                                  DEEPAK @ NANNU YADAV
                                                           Versus
                                               THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           Appearance:
                              Shri Mukund Kumar Chourasia - Advocate for the appellant.
                              Shri Shivam Dubey - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

                                                            JUDGMENT

By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.02.2020 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Pipariya, District Hoshangabad in Sessions Trial No.336/2016 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 363 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 07 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.

2. As per the prosecution case, informant/complainant Ramswaroop lodged a report at Police Station Pipariya stating that he is a resident of village Silari and is employed at Vrindavan Dhaba, Khaparkheda. It was alleged that on 30.06.2016, at about 8:00 a.m., his two sons, namely Pawan (elder) and Karan (younger), left their house to Anganwadi. At about 2:00 p.m., the younger son Karan returned home, whereas the elder son Pawan did not return. Thereafter, the complainant received a phone call from his

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1853

2 CRA-6086-2020 daughter Vaishnavi, who informed him that Pawan had not come back home. Upon receiving this information, the complainant returned to his house and enquired from his wife Seema Rajput and daughter Vaishnavi, who confirmed that Karan had returned from the Anganwadi but Pawan was still missing. Subsequently, the complainant contacted the Anganwadi worker, Bhagwati, who informed him that she had dropped both the children at the doorstep of their house and thereafter proceeded to drop other children. Thereafter, the complainant made extensive searches for his son Pawan at the houses of relatives and at other possible places in village Silari, but in vain. It is further alleged that Dharmendra Rajput informed the complainant that Deepak Kirar had been roaming near his house and might have taken Pawan

along with him. On the basis of the said information, the complainant expressed suspicion that Deepak Kirar had enticed and taken away his son Pawan.

3. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted in the competent court, which on its turn committed the case to the court of session from where it was made over to First Additional Sessions Judge, Pipariya, District Hoshangabad (M.P.) for trial.

4. The learned Trial Judge on the basis of averments made against the appellant in the charge sheet framed charge for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. He took the plea that he has been falsely implicated in the matter. He has chosen not to examine any witness in his defence.

5. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1853

3 CRA-6086-2020 as many as 09 witnesses, which are Pawan (PW-1), Ramswaroop (PW-2), Seema Rajput (PW-3), Dharmendra Singh (PW-4), B.S. Prajapati (PW-5), Kailash Mehra (PW-6), Mohan Singh (PW-7), Ashok Kumar (PW-8) and Madan Pawar (PW-9), and placed Ex.P/1 to P/11 and Ex.D/1 to D/3 the documents on record.

6. Learned trial Court, after hearing both the parties, found the prosecution case proved in respect of commission of offence under Section 363 of IPC. Learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant for commission of offence as shown herein-above in paragraph 1.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the present appellant that the present appellant is in custody for more than six years. Earlier during the trial he remained in custody for 03 months and 18 days and thereafter as per custody report dated 22.10.2025, he remained in custody for 05 years 11 months and 13 days. As on today, two and half months have already been lapsed thereafter and therefore the entire sentence is more than six years. It is also submitted that he is not pressing the appeal on merits and pressing it only on the point of sentence. It is also submitted on the point of sentence that the incident is of the year 2016. At that time, appellant was 23 years of the age. He has no criminal antecedents. He also suffered the agony of trial since 2016 and his conduct was cooperative with the Court during trial. Therefore, it is prayed that the jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him, though on the point of fine, the Court may pass any justified order.

8. Learned counsel for the State has supported the findings recorded

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1853

4 CRA-6086-2020 by the Trial Court and has submitted that after appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, the Trial Court has rightly found the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence and has prayed for dismissal of the appeal. However, Court is at liberty to consider the matter on the point of sentence.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and record of Trial Court.

10. 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 363 of IPC, hence, conviction of appellant under Section 363 of IPC needs no interference.

11. As regards sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case; the age of accused/ appellant as he was 23 years of age at the time of commission of offence; contention of the counsel that accused/appellant has no criminal antecedents and he was on bail during the trial but he never misused the liberty so granted; he has already suffered jail sentence of more than six years; the incident is of the year 2016 and since then the appellant is facing mental agony, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would meet if while maintaining the fine amount as imposed by the learned Trial Court under Section 363 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 Section 363 of IPC, jail sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him and the fine amount as imposed by the learned Trial Court under Section 363

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:1853

5 CRA-6086-2020 of IPC is maintained.

12. Appellant is in jail. Subject to deposit of fine amount, if not already deposited, he be released in this case forthwith, if not required in any other case.

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

14. The order of the Trial Court pertaining to disposal of the property is hereby affirmed.

15. Let record of the Trial Court along with copy of this order be sent to the concerned Trial Court for information and necessary compliance.

16. Accordingly, the criminal appeal stands disposed of to the extent as indicated herein above.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI) JUDGE

julie