Sonu @ Pramod vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2026 Latest Caselaw 735 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sonu @ Pramod vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 January, 2026

Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh

Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6790




                                                                 1                         CRR-1773-2015
                              IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT JABALPUR
                                                       BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
                                                  ON THE 23rd OF JANUARY, 2026
                                               CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1773 of 2015
                                                      SONU @ PRAMOD
                                                           Versus
                                               THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           Appearance:
                              Shri Abhinav Dubey - Advocate for the applicant.
                              Ms. Gauri Pathak - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State

                                                                     ORDER

This revision was admitted on 27.08.2015.

With the consent of the learned counsel for the both the parties matter is heard finally.

2. The applicant is aggrieved of the judgment dated 24.07.2015 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, District Hoshangabad, in CRR No.183/2011 arising out of the judgement dated 12.09.2011 passed in Criminal Case No.1355/2008 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshangabad

whereby, applicant Sonu @ Promod has been convicted under Section 379 of IPC and sentenced him R.I. for Six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that although revision is filed against the conviction and sentence, he is not pressing his revision against the conviction, but the sentence may be reduced to the period of custody already undergone by the applicant.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6790

2 CRR-1773-2015

4. Ms. Gauri Pathak learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has no objection if the conviction of the applicant is maintained and sentence is reduced.

5. Perused of the record of trial Court as well as appellate Court.

6. Considered the statement of PW/1-Gautam Prashad Yadav, PW/2- Kailash Yadav, PW/3 Mohandas, PW/4-Vijay Dadav, PW/5-Devendra Yadav, PW/6-Kanhaiya Lal Malvia, PW/7- Mamta Dewan and PW/8- Anirudha Yadav and also statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and it is seen that judgment of conviction is well justified. Therefore, the revision against conviction is dismissed.

7. Considered the quantum of sentence.

8. The accused/applicant Sonu @ Promod has been charged under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, along with his co‑accused, for committing theft of a motor pump used for drawing water, valued at approximately Rs.5,000/‑ to Rs.5,500/‑. During the trial applicant did not remain in custody, but after rejection order 24.07.2015 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, District Hoshangabad, in CRR No.183/2011, he was sent to jail and thereafter, this Court granted suspension of sentence on 27.08.2015.

9. In the considered view of this court in the fact and circumstance of the case as narrated above and looking to the nature of offence and value of the article/property, the sentence can be reduced. Thus, the sentence is altered and modify to the extent already undergone by the applicant . Further, the fine imposed under Section 379 of the IPC is enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6790

3 CRR-1773-2015 Rs.5,000/-. The amount if deposited previously shall be adjusted. If the fine amount is not deposited, then the applicant shall undergo the default sentence as awarded by the learned trial court under default stipulation.

11. As a result, the revision filed by the applicant is partly allowed and disposed of.

12. Disposal of the case property would be as per the judgment of the trial Court.

13. If the presence of the applicant is not required in any other case, he will be released from the jail immediately. Let the original record of the trial court be sent back to the concerned court.

(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE

NRJ