[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tejpal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1175
1 CRR-764-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 764 of 2014
TEJPAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Sarthak Saluja - learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Rahul Solanki - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
HEARD ON : 05.01.2026
POSTED ON : 14.01.2026
ORDER
This criminal revision under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 is preferred being aggrieved by the judgment dated
04.07.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.226/2011 by the Sessions Judge, Rajgarh
(Biaora) District Rajgarh (M.P.) arising out of judgment dated 26.07.2011 in
RCT No.1058/2008 by the CJM, Rajgarh whereby the revision petitioners
have been convicted under Section 379 of the IPC and have been sentenced
for 2 years R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation of 3 months
additional R.I.
02. Facts of the case, in brief, are that after investigation in a Crime
No.08/2003 registered at Police Station Karanwas, District Rajgarh (M.P.),
the involvement of 10 accused persons including present revision petitioners
was found under Section 379 and 419 of the IPC. The modus operandi for
committing a crime was adopted that on 08.01.2003, Murlidhar Soni (PW-2)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1175
2 CRR-764-2014
Cashier in Bank of India, Branch Karanwas withdrew an amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- from the Pachore branch of Bank of India and returned with
peon Shivlal (PW-1). The cash was put in a locked iron box. While they were
waiting at A.B. Road to reach Karanwas, at that time one TATA Sumo
vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-11-C-0497 came and offered lift to the
bank employees. Thereafter, the driver of TATA Sumo vehicle bearing
registration No.RJ-11-C-0497 and identified as tehsildar started the music
system in very loud sound and he asked that due to the weight of iron box his
speaker may be damaged and asked them to put the iron box containing the
cash at the back of vehicle where other accused persons were sitting. After
that, they got down at the Karnwas bus stand and reach Karnawas Branch of
Bank of India. When they open the cash box at Karnawas then three pair of
shoes were found instead of Rs.2,00,000/- cash. Murlidhar Soni (PW-2)
immediately rushed to Police Station Karnawas, District Rajgarh (Biaora)
and lodged the F.I.R. against 10 persons. The Police Station Karnawas,
District Rajgarh (Biaora) immediately informed about the incident to all the
nearby police stations. The Police Station Kotwali, Rajgarh rushed towards
the TATA sumo vehicle. The TATA sumo vehicle was intercepted and all
the persons were apprehended. The stolen cash was recovered. They were
taken into custody. The identification parade was conducted. Three pair of
shoes found in the cash box were found to be of Diwansingh, Subedarsingh
and Shreepad. The charge-sheet was submitted in the court of CJM, Rajgarh
on 23.01.2003. The charges under Section 379 and 419 of the IPC were
framed. They abjured the guilt.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1175
3 CRR-764-2014
03. During trial six persons got absconded and only 4 persons namely
Raman Kha @ Ramanua, Tehsildarsingh, Tejpalsingh and Shreepad were
available at the time of judgment and were convicted and sentenced by the
trial Court as per para 1 of the judgment.
04. Appellants preferred the appeal. During appeal accused Shreepad
has died on 30.04.2014 and vide judgment dated 04.07.2014, the appeal
preferred by Raman Kha @ Ramanua, Tehsildarsingh & Tejpalsingh was
dismissed. Remaining three accused persons preferred this revision petition
and Tejpalsingh S/o Daulatsingh also died on 26.04.2019 and the revision
preferred by Tejpalsingh abated and this revision is being disposed of with
regard to Raman Kha @ Ramanua and Shabana.
05. The revision petition is preferred on the ground that both the courts
below committed error in not considering the fact that the prosecution story
is based on hearsay evidence. Both the courts below further committed error
in not considering the fact that there is no direct evidence and material on
record which clearly indicate the involvement of the revision petitioner.
There is no independent witness. It is further argued that the sentence is not
proportionate.
Heard.
06. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the revision petition.
Perused the record.
07. The exhibit-P/17 reveals that petitioner Raman @ Ramanua was
apprehended at 15:05 pm on 08.01.2003 at National Highway No.12, in front
of Kishangarh Kothi by the Police Station Kotwali, Rajgarh with Rs.35,000/-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1175
4 CRR-764-2014
cash in denomination of Rs.50 notes of seven bundles with slip of PNB and
revision petitioner Shabana apprehended at 16:35 pm of 08.01.2003 at the
same place with Rs.10,000/- with denomination of Rs.50/- note in two
bundles with slips of Bank of India, Branch Pachore vide Exhibit-P/2. As per
Rajendra Sharma (PW-11), who is the In-charge Police Station Kotwali,
Rajgarh and he intercepted and arrested the persons taking journey through
TATA Sumo vehicle No.RJ-11-C-0497 on the intimation of Police Station
Karnawas through wireless. In the test identification parade also Murlidhar
Soni (PW-2) identified the Shabana and in the court also. Though, the
revision petitioner Raman @ Ramanua was not identified by Murlidhar Soni
(PW-2) in T.I.P. but Shivlal (PW-1) has identified this Raman.
08. The trial Court has appreciated the evidence in para 64 and 65 of
the judgment properly and there is no perversity in recording the conviction
of the revision petitioners. The modus operandi does not require any leniency
and sentence is proportionate. Hence, this criminal revision is dismissed.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
VS
