Krishna Kuchbandhiya vs State Of M.P.

Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, J

With the consent of both the parties, this Criminal Appeal heard finally.

This appeal under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and finding dated 29.01.2018

passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bina, Distt. Sagar in Session Trial No. 272/14, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 392 of India

Penal Code and awarded the sentence for three years with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for one month.

Case of prosecution in nutshell is that, on 06.04.2014, the complainant was travailing in general coach of Rajya Rani Express. At about 19.45 pm

when the train was stopped at Mandibamora Railway Station, the complainant was standing in gate of general coach and watching cricket match in

his mobile then accused came here and as soon as the train departed from station accused punched in the face of complainant and snatched the

mobile phone and ran away. The complainant was shouted and chased the accused, then police and some persons caught the accused. On the basis of

dehatinalishi Ex. P-4, FIR has been registered as Ex. P-5 by GRP Beena.

 4. After completion of investigation prosecution filed the charge sheet before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bina, who turn committed the

case to Court of Sessions Judge, Sagar thereafter the case transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bina. Learned trial Court framed the

charges under Section 394 of Indian Penal Code. Accused abjured his guilt and pleaded innocent. The prosecution examined four witnesses in the

trial. On appraisal of the evidence the learned trial Court found the accused guilty for commission of offence under Section 392 of IPC instead of 394

of IPC and awarded the sentence for three years R.I..

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial court erred in passing the judgment of conviction by not appreciating the evidence on

record in proper perspective. He submits that there were so many contradictions and omissions in statements of witnesses and they did not support the

prosecution story also the eye witness of case have not supported the prosecution case. He prays for allowing the appeal.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/state opposed the submission of appellant counsel and submits that the accused is habitual

offender of such type of cases and the prosecution has fully established its case beyond any reasonable doubt. The complaint identified the accused in

trial and the mobile has been seized from the possession of the accused. He prays for dismissal of appeal.

Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record.

The prosecution has examined four witnesses in trial namely Kailash (PW-1), Veerendra Singh Baghel (PW2),Vinay Bhardwaj (PW-3),vDr.

Pramod Kumar Goyal (PW4) and recorded the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Bear perusal of evidence available on record it is

found that there is no dispute that the seizure property (Nokia N-500 Mobile) which found from the possession of accused is belongs to complaint

Vinay Bhardwaj (PW-3). The complainant deposed that the accused snatched his mobile after punching him in face and ran away from the spot

thereafter he caught the accused with the help of police, this evidence led by the prosecution is dully proved because the defence did not cross

examine the accused in this point. Dr. Pramod Goyal (PW-4), who prepared the MLC report of complainant stated in his deposition that injuries were

found beside left eye, left forearm and right knee of the complainant. This version of PW-4 is dully corroborated from the statement of complaint that

the accused punched in his face during snatching the mobile. Kailash (PW-1) who was the witness of seizure stated that police was sized mobile from

the possession of accused but in his cross examination he turned from his statement. The evidence of complainant Vijay Bhardwaj (PW-3) is wholly

reliable.

After careful examination of evidence available on record and submissions of both the counsel, this court has found appellant guilty for commission

of offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. Conviction recorded by the learned trial court is hereby confirmed.

As far as sentence is concerned, the incident took place in 2014 and appellant has already suffered the jail sentence of about 30 months out of

conviction of three years (36 months). Considering this fact and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that the sentence of imprisonment

imposed upon the accused should be reduced to the period of imprisonment which already undergone by him to meet the ends of justice.

Therefore, the jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. In this way, the appellant is sentenced for offence punishable under

Section 392 of IPC to the period already undergone and fine amount is enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine, he shall

further suffer the jail sentence of one month of R.I.

The appellant is in custody and he shall be released if his detention is not required in any other case.

Record of the trial court be sent back immediately, along with a copy of this judgment for necessary compliance.

Accordingly, appeal is disposedoff.