Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 24 (MP)

Lato Singh v. State of M. P.

2009-01-06

N.K.MODY

body2009
ORDER 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.9.2003 passed by VI ASJ (Fast Track), Bhind in Criminal Appeal No. 109/2003 whereby judgment dated 22.7.2003 passed by CJM, Bhind in Criminal Case No.1354/2000 whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under section 454 and 380 of IPC sentencing him to undergo three years imprisonment with fine of Rs. 300/- and fine of Rs. 300/- was modified to the extent that conviction u/s 454 IPC was set aside while conviction u/s 380 IPC was maintained, the present revision petition has been filed. 2. Case of the prosecution was that on 12.10.2000 complainant/Umesh Shrivastava went to village for funeral of his father-in-law and after return to his residence he found that some valuable articles were stolen. Thereafter, petitioner and other co-accused found in possession of the same articles and petitioner was arrested and charge-sheeted. After framing of charges and also after recording of evidence the offence was found proved and petitioner was convicted as stated hereinabove. An appeal was preferred against that judgment which was maintained, hence this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that petitioner has convicted illegally while petitioner has not committed any offence. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Courts below committed error in not properly appreciating the evidence which resulted in incorrect judgment and is liable to be set aside in this revision. It is submitted that the learned Court below committed error in not considering that material omissions and contradictions appearing in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. It is submitted that petitioner was in jail w.e.f. 26.9.2003 to 26.12.2003. Bail was granted by this Court and thereafter petitioner was released on bail. Learned counsel submits that the conviction and sentence be set aside. 4. In alternative learned counsel submits that looking to the nature of offence and the fact that petitioner has already served substantive part of jail sentence, the same may be reduced to the period already undergone and the amount of fine may reasonably be enhanced. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that after due appreciation of evidence both the Courts below have found the petitioner guilty for the aforesaid offence. It is submitted that revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited and no interference is called for in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that after due appreciation of evidence both the Courts below have found the petitioner guilty for the aforesaid offence. It is submitted that revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited and no interference is called for in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. 6. From perusal of the record it is evident that both the Courts below concurrently found that the petitioner has committed offence for which the petitioner has been convicted. This Court is well aware about the I limitation of this Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, which does not empower re-appreciation of evidence. Hence so far as conviction I is concerned the judgment passed by the learned Courts below is maintained. 7. So far as the period of sentence is concerned, looking to the limited prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and the nature of offence and the fact that petitioner has already served substantive period of jail sentence, the purpose would be served in case the jail sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone, subject to depositing fine of Rs. 5,000/- within a period of two months, for which counsel for the State also agrees, in default the petitioner shall suffer jail sentence awarded by the Learned Court below. 8. In the result revision petition is partly allowed. The findings of conviction is hereby maintained with the modification to the extent that the jail sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone subject to depositing fine of Rs. 5,000/- within a period of two months, in default the petitioner shall suffer jail sentence awarded by the learned lower Court below. It is made clear that in case of arrest, upon depositing the above-mentioned amount the petitioner be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged. 9. With the aforesaid modifications, the revision petition stands disposed of C.C. as per rules.