Kedar & Anr. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "The Code") has been preferred by the applicants against the judgment dated 28/02/2018 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (Biaora), in Cri. Appeal No.159/2017, wherein the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal by affirming the conviction and sentence passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajgarh vide judgment dated 06/05/2017 passed in Criminal Case No.797/2015 whereby each of the applicants have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC, 1860 and sentenced to undergo 1 year R.I and fine of Rs.500/- with usual default stipulation.

Prosecution story in nutshell are that on 01/08/2015, in at about 3.00 am, when complainant Bhanwarlal wake up to answer the nature's call, he found the buffalo missing, which was tied in the shed near his hut. Thereafter, he searched for his buffalo in the village by riding on his motor-cycle and found the present applicants along with his buffalo near Karadiya Dhanwas road. He caught hold of them, inquired their whereabouts and lodged a report at Police-Station Rajgarh. On the basis of which, F.I.R bearing crime No. 393/2015 for offence punishable under Sections 380 of IPC, 1860 was registered against the applicants. During investigation, police recorded the memorandum of applicants under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act and on the basis of which seized the buffalow. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons for the said offence.

Trial Court, while passing the judgment, convicted the applicants for offence punishable under Sections 380 of IPC, 1860 and sentenced each of them to undergo 1 year R.I and fine of Rs.500/-, with usual default stipulation. An appeal was filed against the said conviction and sentence, which was dismissed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (Biaora) vide judgment dated 28/02/2018. This judgment is under challenge in the present revision petition.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the independent witnesses of the case did not support the prosecution story and the statement of the witnesses are self contradictory, which was overlooked by the Courts below and they have committed error in not properly appreciating the evidence, thus, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside in the present revision. Lastly it is submitted that since the applicants are first offender, they have faced the prosecution before the Court concerned for more than 3 years and have already served almost 2 ½ months of their jail sentence, therefore, the same may be reduced to the period of undergone.

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that after due appreciation of the evidence learned Courts below have found the applicants guilty of the offence hence no interference is called for in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below.

I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the material on record.

From the perusal of the record, it reveals that commission of alleged offence by the applicant is found proved on the basis of statement of complainant Bhanwarlal (P.W.1), Lalsingh (P.W.2), Uddam Singh (P.W.3), Bheeram (P.W.4) and Premsingh (P.W.5) which is also found support from the FIR (Ex.P/1) and seizure memo (Ex.P/3) . The scope of appreciation of evidence in the revision is very limited, therefore, this Court is of the view that the Courts below have rightly believed the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

In view of the aforesaid and on the basis of the material available on the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Courts below have not committed any illegality in convicting the applicants for offence punishable under Sections 380 of IPC, 1860.

So far as the period of sentence is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that looking to the fact that the applicants have already served more than 2 1/2 months of their jail sentence, therefore, this Court is of the view that the jail sentence awarded to the applicant deserves to be and is hereby reduced to the period of four months.

The Registry of this Court is directed to arrange for issuance of supersession warrant against applicants Kedar and Gulabchand. A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court along with record for information and compliance.

Resultantly, the present criminal revision stands partly allowed.

Certified copy as per Rules