Israk Khan @ Israr vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Hon''ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta

The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 5.3.2009 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in S.T. No. 602/08, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable u/s 411 of IPC and sentenced for one year''s R.I. with fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, three month''s R.I. was also directed. The prosecution''s case, in short is that, on 16.8.2008 the complainant Shanti Bai (PW-1) resident of Govindpura, Bhopal was going to Jahangirabad towards the house of her brother. In the way, one unknown person came on the motorcycle and snatched a golden chain and golden Mangalsutra from her neck. The complainant lodged an FIR at Police Station, Govindpura on the very same day. The complainant could not identify the culprit because he had covered his face by a helmet. After sometime, the police arrested the appellant and recovered a golden chain from him. The golden chain was duly identified by the complainant in the test identification. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the J.M.F.C. Bhopal who committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Bhopal and ultimately, it was transferred to the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal.

The appellant abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific plea and hence, no defence evidence was adduced.

The learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge after considering the prosecution''s evidence acquitted the appellant from the charge of offence punishable u/s 392 of IPC, but convicted for the offence punishable u/s 411 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the appellant does not challenge the conviction directed against him but he simply prays for reduction of the sentence. If the approach taken by the Additional Sessions Judge is considered then, the sentence is passed in the light of the fact that the incidents of chain snatching were increasing at Bhopal. However, the appellant was not convicted for the offence punishable u/s 392 of IPC. One golden chain and one golden Mangalsutra were snatched, whereas one chain was found with the appellant and the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable u/s 411 of IPC. The appellant was a youth of 22 years of age at the time of the incident. Though, he could not be released on probation but looking to his age and future alongwith his overt act, one year R.I. directed by the trial Court appears to be excessive. The appellant remained in the custody for more than six months'' at present and therefore, it would be proper that his sentence may be reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody but their should be some enhancement in the fine amount.

On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby partly allowed. The conviction directed for the offence punishable u/s 411 of IPC is hereby maintained but the sentence is reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody by enhancing the fine from the sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the sum of Rs. 3,000/-. The appellant is directed to deposit the remaining fine amount before the trial Court within two months from today. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo for three months'' R.I.

At present, the appellant is on bail. His presence is no more required before this Court and therefore, it is directed that his bail bonds shall stand discharged. A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information and compliance.