Gresy Mary @ Geeta Bai vs State of Madhya Pradesh

S.R. Waghmare, J.—This revision petition has been filed u/s 397 r/w S. 401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.02.2013 passed by XV Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 648/2012, whereby the petitioner was convicted for offence u/s 381 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo one year R.I. with fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine she was to further undergo two months R.I. Brief facts necessary for elucidation are that petitioner Gresy Mary W/o William Denial was proceeded in the trial Court for offence u/s. 381 of the IPC since she was domestic servant of the complainant and there were allegations of her having stolen certain articles like jewellery and money in the absence of the complainant and her mother. The FIR was lodged. Upon the complaint of the complainant case was registered against the petitioner. After framing of charge and recording of evidence, petitioner was convicted.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was convicted by the trial Court and being aggrieved the petitioner had filed an appeal, which also upheld the conviction by the trial Court and hence the present revision. Counsel submitted that there was not much to go by merit. However, the FIR has been delayed and recovery witness Kamlesh Maratha has turned hostile in Court. Counsel submitted that only Rs. 1,000/- and one gold ring have been recovered from the possession of the present petitioner. Moreover Counsel submitted that if at all this was the first attempt by the petitioner and the lenient view be taken because petitioner is a lady and she has been in custody since judgment of the Appellate Court i.e. 14.02.2013 almost undergone half of sentence as imposed by the Courts below. Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the conviction is contrary to the principles of law. The Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence and the fact that there are material omissions and contradictions in the testimony of the material prosecution witnesses especially the complainant. However, the prosecution has been unable to prove the offence u/s 381 of the IPC since the recovery witnesses have also turned hostile in Court.

Counsel prayed that the revision deserves to be allowed and the judgment of conviction deserves to be set-aside. In alternate Counsel has prayed that if the Court is satisfied regarding the conviction the custodial sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.

Counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the petitioner and submitted that there is no other criminal case registered against the petitioner. Counsel submitted that PW. 1 Shantibai and PW. 3 Dinesh have fully supported the prosecution case and offence has been proved beyond doubt. Counsel submitted that there is concurrent finding against the petitioner and the judgment of the Appellate Court is in accordance with law and does not require any interference and the revision filed by the petitioner be dismissed.

On considering the above submissions, I find that the impugned order is based on valid and cogent reasons and proper marshalling of evidence and no infirmity can be found with the impugned judgment of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, I have no hesitation in upholding the conviction of the accused/petitioner for offence u/s 381 of the IPC. However, considering the fact that there is no other case recorded against the petitioner and the petitioner is a lady; aged 54 years and working as a maid servant for daily living and the fact that the petitioner has undergone some of the custodial sentence, the alternate prayer of the Counsel for the petitioner being limited and reasonable is allowed in the interest of justice. The custodial sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the fine amount is further raised by Rs. 1,000/-; which shall be deposited in the Trial Court by the accused/petitioner within a period of two months from the date of this judgment. On failure to pay the fine within the stipulated period and the petitioner shall undergo the remaining sentence as directed by the lower Court. With the aforesaid modification the revision is partly allowed to the extent herein above indicated.

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned lower Court for compliance.