Hitesh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “The Codeâ€) against the

judgment dated 09/08/2018 passed by Eighth Additional Sessions Judge, District-Indore, in Sessions Trial No.715/2017, whereby the appellant has

been convicted for offence punishable under Sections 392 of IPC, 1860 and sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I, with a fine amount of Rs.2,000/- and

usual default stipulation.

Brief facts of the case are that on 28/05/2015 when the complainant was returning from Sai Mandir, Chhatribagh, on the way she met a girl who

was residing in Maheshwari Hostel. They both were chatting on their way and when they reached Rajput Park, Anderi Gali then a motorcycle came

from opposite direction and the driver of the vehicle snatched her golden chain of 7 to 8 grams alongwith a pendent of 1 ½ grams and fled away.

She raised alarm for help in vain. Thereafter, the complainant along with her son reached Police station Chhatripura, District Indore and filed a written

complaint. On the basis of which FIR bearing Crime No.240/2015 was registered against unknown persons for offence under Section 392 of IPC,

1860.

During the investigation police apprehended the appellant and on the basis of his disclosure statement, one golden chain was recovered, which was

identified by the complainant. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for offence under Section 392 of IPC,

1860 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore who committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Indore, which was

transferred to Eighth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore.

Appellant abjured his guilt and took a plea that he has been falsely implicated in the present case, however, he has not examined any witnesses in

his defence.

Trial Court, after considering the submissions advance by the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the entire evidence on record,

convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC, 1860, sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I and a fine amount of Rs.2,000/-, in

default to undergo additional 4 months R.I.

Learned counsel for the appellant has expressly gave up his challenge to the findings of the Court below so far as the conviction of the appellant is

concerned. In other words, the learned counsel for the appellant accepted the finding of conviction passed against the appellant, however, he

challenged the quantum of punishment (5 years R.I) alone. It is submitted that the appellant is a poor labourer aged about 27 years. Counsel assures

that in future the appellant will not involve in such criminal activities. It is also submitted that having regard to all circumstances which resulted in

appellant's conviction and further keeping in view the fact that the appellant has served more than 2 ½ years of the jail sentence awarded to him,

therefore, counsel prayed that appellant's jail sentence be reduced suitably .

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the appeal and argued that guilt of the appellant/accused has been proved beyond

reasonable doubt by overwhelming evidence, therefore, he prayed that the appeal of the accused/appellant be dismissed and judgment passed by the

trial court be confirmed.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entire record of the case, I am inclined to allow this appeal in part upon finding some

force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.

Though the appellant has not made any attempt to assail the finding of her conviction on merits, yet with a view to satisfy myself as to whether the

findings of the trial Court of conviction is legally sustainable or not, I perused the record and especially therein having so perused, I am satisfied that no

case is made out to interfere in the findings of the trial Court on merits. Commission of the alleged offence by the appellant is established on the basis

of the statements of complainant Nisha Kalra (P.W.1), Akash Jain (P.W.4), coupled with the fact that a broken golden chain weighing 7 grams has

been recovered from the appellant, I, therefore, upheld the findings of conviction under Section 392 of IPC, 1860, recorded by the trial Court.

Now the question arises as to whether the appellant's sentence should be reduced and if so, to what extent as urged by the learned counsel for the

appellant.

So far as the period of sentence is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that looking to the fact that the appellant is a poor labourer aged

about 27 years, he has already served more than 2 ½ years in jail and counsel assures that in future the appellant will not involve in such criminal

activities, therefore, this Court is of the view that the jail sentence awarded to the appellant deserves to be and is hereby reduced to the period of 3

years whereas the sentence of fine awarded by the trial Court is affirmed.

The Registry of this Court is directed to arrange for issuance of supersession warrant against appellant-Hitesh. A copy of the judgment be sent to

the trial Court along with record for information and compliance.

With the aforesaid modification the criminal appeal No.6958/2018 stands partly allowed and disposed of.

Certified copy as per Rules.