Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 241 (MP)

PREMCHAND s/o MADANLAL v. STATE OF M. P.

2009-02-17

N.K.MODY

body2009
JUDGMENT : 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 27-6-2007 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocites) Ratlam in Cr. A. No. 132/07 and 146/07, whereby the judgment dated 23-5-2007 passed by JMFC, Ratlam in Criminal Case No. 16120/06 whereby the petitioners were convicted for the offence punishable under section 379 of Indian Penal Code by sentencing them to undergo one year RI and fine of Rs. 500/- each was confirmed, present revision petition has been filed. 2. Case of the prosecution was that complainant Radheshyam lodged a report to the effect submersible motor was stolen by unknown person which was kept in the courtyard of the shop of complainant. Further case of prosecution was that after investigation petitioner was arrested for the same. After framing of charges and also after recording of evidence the offence was found proved and petitioners were convicted as stated hereinabove. An appeal was preferred against that order which was dismissed, hence this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued at length and submits that petitioners have been convicted illegally while petitioners have not committed any offence. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Courts below committed error in not properly appreciating the evidence which resulted incorrect judgment and is liable to be set aside in this revision. It is submitted that the learned Courts below committed error in not considering that material omissions and contradictions appearing in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. It is submitted that petitioners were in jail w.e.f. 27-6-2007. Bail was granted by this Court vide order dated 19-7-2007 and thereafter petitioners were released on bail. Learned counsel submits that the conviction and sentence be set aside. 4. In alternative learned counsel submits that the petitioners are poor persons. Petitioners were in jail for a period of 23 days. Looking to the nature of offence and the fact that petitioners have 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners have committed offence for which the petitioners have been convicted. This Court is well aware about the limitation of this Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, which does not empower reappreciation of evidence. Hence so far as conviction 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 petitioners and the nature of offence and the fact that petitioners have already served substantive period of jail sentence the purpose would be served in case the jail sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone, subject to depositing further sum of Rs. 10,000/- each within a period of two months, for which counsel for the State also agrees, failing which the petitioners shall suffer jail sentence awarded by the learned Court below. 8. In the result the 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 petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone subject to depositing further fine of Rs. 10,000/- each within a period of two months, failing which the petitioners shall suffer jail sentence awarded by the learned Court below. Petitioners are on bail. Their bail bonds stands discharged. Even after arrest upon depositing the amount as directed above petitioners shall be released forthwith. 9. With the aforesaid modification, the revision petition stands disposed of. C.C. as per rules.