Jumman @ Javed vs State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, Judge

Both the appeals arose from the judgment dated 30.4.2011 passed by the XIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in ST No. 592/2010 therefore, hereby decided with a common judgment. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 30.4.2011 passed by learned XIIth Additional Sessions Judge Bhopal in ST No. 592/2010 whereby the appellants were convicted for offence punishable u/s 392 of I.P.C. and sentenced for three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of payment of fine each one of them was to undergo one month''s additional rigorous imprisonment.

The prosecution''s case in short is that on 10.8.2010 at about 9.30 p.m. in the evening the complainant Geeta Raghuwashi (PW2) was coming back from the function at the house of someone at Subhash Nagar to her house situated at Junior MIG, Old Subhash Nagar after taking some prasad etc. Two unknown persons came on the motorcycle and snatched her mangalsutra. The complainant lodged an FIR Ex. P/1 soon after the incident before the Police station, Aishbagh. In the investigation the appellants were arrested. On the basis of the memo given by accused Chhotu @ Mahendra u/s 27 of the Evidence Act, so many golden chains were recovered. Out of them the golden chain of the complainant was also recovered. That golden chain was duly identified by the complainant before one Akbar Khan, Parshad of Municipal Corporation, Bhopal. It is also established that the appellant Javed was also involved in the crime and so many golden chains were seized from the appellant Javed also. After due investigation a charge sheet was filed before the JMFC, Bhopal who, committed the case to the Sessions Court and ultimately it was transferred to the XIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal.

The appellants abjured their guilt but did not take any specific plea. No defence evidence was adduced.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the prosecution''s evidence convicted the appellants for offence punishable u/s 392 of I.P.C. and sentenced them as mentioned above.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that there is no criminal past alleged against the appellants. They were youths of 22-26 years of age at the time of incident. If some golden chains were seized from the appellants then they will suffer for such criminal cases separately. Such seizure would not amount to any criminal past against the appellants. In the present case it is alleged that the golden chain was snatched from the complainant and therefore, looking to the gravity of the offence 12 months imprisonment was sufficient. It is submitted that the appellants have already undergone for more than two years in the custody in the present case. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence passed against the appellants may be reduced to the period which they have already undergone in the custody.

Learned Panel Lawyer has submitted that the conviction and sentence directed by the trial Court appears to be appropriate. There is no change required in the appeal.

After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties it appears that the appellants do not challenge their conviction and therefore, there is no need to discuss on that point. So far as the sentence is concerned looking to the gravity of the offence 18 months rigorous imprisonment appears to be sufficient and therefore, sentence passed against the appellants can be reduced accordingly. Since so many cases were pending against the appellants and there is no intimation that whether the sentence of this case is under execution or not therefore, it would not be proper to reduce the sentence of the appellants to the period which they have already undergone in the custody.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion the appeal filed by the appellants is hereby partly allowed. Conviction directed against the appellants for offence punishable u/s 392 of I.P.C. is hereby maintained but, sentence is reduced from the period of three years rigorous imprisonment to the period of 18 months rigorous imprisonment. No change in the fine amount imposed upon the appellants. The actual under trial period of custody of the appellants for this particular case be adjusted in the period of the main sentence.

Office is directed to issue the supersession warrants accordingly. Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court along with the records of the trial Court for information and compliance if any.