Madhya Pradesh High Court
Krishna vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 December, 2024
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36905
1 CRA-8443-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 8443 of 2024
MULESH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Shyamlal Patidar, counsel for the appellant.
Shri Anand Bhatt, counsel for the State.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3410 of 2024
KRISHNA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Abhay Saraswat, counsel for the appellant.
Shri Anand Bhatt, counsel for the State.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5451 of 2024
RAJENDRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri A.K. Saxena, counsel for the appellant.
Shri Anand Bhatt, counsel for the State.
Heard on :18.12.2024
Delivered On: 23.12.2024
JUDGMENT
These criminal appeals have been filed arising out of the same
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 12/23/2024
4:57:21 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36905
2 CRA-8443-2024
judgment, hence, all the appeals are heard and are being decided with the
common judgment.
2. This criminal appeals have been filed on behalf of the appellants
under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being crestfallen
by the judgment dated 23.02.2024 delivered by the learned 1st ASJ, Badwah
District-Khargone, in Sessions Trial No.07/2022, wherein learned Judge has
convicted the appellants for the offence under Sections 394 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC‘) and sentenced to undergo
10 years R.I. each with fine of Rs1000/- each and in addition, appellant
Krishna has also been convicted and sentenced under Section 25(1-B)(a) r/w
Section 3 of Explosive Act and sentenced for 03 years R.I. each with fine of
Rs.1000/- each respectively and default stipulations.
3. The prosecution case in nutshell is that, the complainant Manoj
Rajpur (PW-1) has made a complaint that on 14.11.2021, the complainant
alongwith Driver Kalu had gone to purchase the bufellows at Mehwada
Market, but due to certain reasons, they could not purchase the same On
15.11.2021 at about 1:00 AM in the night when they were coming back, at
about 4:30AM in the morning, when they reached at Okhla Near Kanai Mata
Temple in the forest, one motorcycle came in front of them. On the said bike,
three persons were sitting, they came to the complainant and the complainant
identified them they snatched Rs.5000/- alongwith one mobile from the
complainant on the point of country made pistol by Krishna appellant. When
a pickup came on the spot, the accused persons fled away from the spot after
committing the incident. On the basis of the complaint, the police registered
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 12/23/2024
4:57:21 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36905
3 CRA-8443-2024
an FIR for the offence punishable under Section 394 of IPC against the
appellants
4. The police after following the due procedure, taken the statements
of the witnesses, seized the articles, prepared the other documents, arrested
the accused persons and after due investigation filed the charge sheet. The
matter was committed to the Court of Sessions.
5. The appellants were tried and charged under Sections 394 of IPC
and under section 25(2) of Arms Act. They abjured their guilt and prayed for
trial. The learned trial Court, after considering the evidence and material
available on record has convicted the appellants, as stated above in para No.
1 of this order.
6. In order to bring home the ingredients of the case, the prosecution
has produced as many as 14 witnesses namely Manoj Solanki complainant
(PW-1), Kalu (PW-2), Abhimanyu (PW-3), Pintu (PW-4), Santosh (PW-5),
Anil Solanki (PW-6), Aakash (PW-7), Ravi Parmar (PW-8), Rak Kumar
Awasthi (PW-9), Mohar Baghel (PW-10), Vivek Patidra (PW-11), Bhojraj
Parmar (PW-12), Haricharan (PW-13) and Anil Jadhav (PW-14). On behalf
of defence, no witness has been was adduced.
7. Learned counsels for the appellants has submitted that the appellants
have preferred this criminal appeal on several grounds but during the course
of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants did not press this appeal on
merits and not assail the finding of conviction part of judgment. They
confined their arguments on the point of sentence only and prays that since
the appellants have already undergone more than three years of jail
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 12/23/2024
4:57:21 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36905
4 CRA-8443-2024
incarceration, therefore, their sentences be reduced to the period already
undergone. It is also submitted by counsel for the appellants that the
complainant and the appellants are well known to each other and only
allegations against the appellants are only to commit loot of Rs.5000/-
alongwith a mobile. It is further submitted that the appellants deserve some
leniency as they have already suffered the ordeal of the trial since 2021 i.e.
for a period of 04 years. It is further submitted that this appeal be partly
allowed and the sentence awarded to the appellants be reduced to the period
already undergone by enhancing the fine amount or as the Court may deem
fit.
8. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supports the
impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of this appeal by submitted that
the appellants have committed the loot with the complainants and committal
of such type of offences are not excusable.
9. Having considered the rival submissions and I have gone through
the record.
10. However, from the face of record and evidence, it is clear that the
learned trial Court has not committed any error in appreciation of evidence
available on record. Further, it is found that the Court below considered the
evidence available on record and correctly found that the case of the
prosecution is well supported by the witnesses and documentary evidence.
The Court below has well considered the material available on record, hence,
no infirmity is found in the impugned order of conviction passed by the
Court below, accordingly, the same is upheld.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 12/23/2024
4:57:21 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36905
5 CRA-8443-2024
11. The appellants have suffered the ordeal of criminal case since 2021
as well as incarceration of more than three years out of total jail incarceration
has already been completed and also there is no criminal record/antecedents
of the appellants, therefore, this Court finds it expedient to partly allowed
this appeal by affirming the findings given by the trial court by imposing
appropriate compensation for the complainant.
12. So far as the sentence of the appellants is concerned, taking into
consideration the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 2021, the
appellant has already undergone jail sentence of more three years, this Court
is of the view that the sentence of appellants under Section 394 of IPC
awarded to the appellant is hereby reduced to the period already undergone
by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.1000/- to 10000/- each.
13. So far as the conviction and sentence of the appellant Krishna
under Section 25(1-B) (A) of is concerned, since the appellant Krishna has
already been completed more than 03 years, the conviction and sentence of
appellant Krishna under Section 25(1-B)(A) of Arms Act stands affimred
14. If the whole enhanced fine amount is recovered, out of the total
fine amount, Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to the victim i.e. Manoj Rajput under
Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. by the trial Court.
15. The appellant is in jail. After depositing the enhanced fine amount,
they shall be released from the jail, if not required in any other case. The
amount of fine if already deposited, and paid to the complainant shall be
adjusted.
16. If the appellants fails to deposit the fine amount, they will suffer
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 12/23/2024
4:57:21 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:36905
6 CRA-8443-2024
03-03 months of simple each imprisonment in default and thereafter
completion of the same, he shall be released from jail, if not required in any
other case.
17. The order of learned trial Court regarding disposal of the seized
property, if any, stands confirmed.
18. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for necessary
compliance and information.
19. A copy of this judgment be also placed in the record of connected
criminal appeals.
20. Pending application, if any, stands closed.
Certified copy, as per rules.
amit
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 12/23/2024
4:57:21 PM