Ganpat vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kukshi District Dhar in S. T. No.79/2017 pronounced on 20.03.20191, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 392 of IPC and sentence to undergo 5 years RI with fine of Rs.2,000/-and in default, to suffer additional 6 months RI.

As per the prosecution story, appellant committed loot of the complainant Dr. Bhupendra Yadav and his wife and had looted the purse of Dr. Bhupendra Yadav containing ID card, driving license, 2 ATM cards and cash of Rs.12,000/- and purse of wife of the complainant containing ID card, driving license, 2 ATM cards and cash of Rs.10,000/- and this loot was committed on 04.06.2017 at around 5.30 PM along with three other co-accused persons. The complainant who had been travelling along with his wife and child in his Scorpio had stopped midway for feeding the child and at that relevant point of time, four accused persons on two motorcycles threatened him and asked him to hand over the belongings consequently, he parted with the belongings, which has been described above and this loot was committed by the appellant along with three other co-accused persons, who fled from the spot. All three co-accused persons are still absconding.

The FIR was subsequently lodged. Investigation was carried out and charge-sheet was filed against the appellant whereas, other three co-accused persons have been declared to be absconders and investigation is still going on against them under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C..

Perusal of judgement and record shows that Rs.2,000/- and a mobile was seized from the possession of the appellant on his memorandum. Depositions of witnesses were perused and it appears that conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court holding the appellant guilty under Section 392 of IPC is appropriate.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is in jail since 21.07.2017 and will complete two years on 21.07.2019. He also submits that the period lodged in jail be considered to be appropriate jail sentence in this matter.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the State was also heard, who has made submissions and seeks enhancement of fine amount, if jail sentence is being reduced.

Considered submissions of both the counsels for the parties. Looking to the fact that only a sum of Rs.2,000/- along with a mobile has been recovered from the possession of the appellant, it would be appropriate to reduce the quantum of jail sentence from 5 years RI to 2 years RI with no change in the fine amount. Fine amount is not being enhanced in view of the fact that only Rs.2000/-has been recovered from the possession of the appellant. This appeal on the point of conviction stands dismissed. However, on the question of quantum of sentence stands allowed partly as above. On failure to pay the fine of Rs.2,000/- by the appellant, he shall be required to undergo additional 6 months RI for the default.

With the aforesaid modifications in the quantum of sentence, this appeal stands disposed of in above terms. The order pertaining to disposal of property as pronounced passed by the Trial Court stands affirmed.

A copy of this order along with original record be sent to the Trial Court for due compliance.

Certified copy, as per rules.