Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1146 (MP)

Sarman v. State of M. P.

2010-11-18

N.K.GUPTA

body2010
JUDGMENT N.K. Gupta, J. 1. The Appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 16.8.2010, passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T. No. 208/2009, by which he was convicted for offence punishable under Section 392 of I.P.C. and inflicted with the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine he was to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. The prosecution story in short is that, on 23.11.2008 the complainant Shashi Jain had visited Jain Temple at Shiv Nagar with her daughter Rekha Jain. At about 6.30 p.m when she was returning back from the temple to her house situated at Hanumantal, someone snatched her golden chain from her neck. Chain was snatched by three persons riding on a motor cycle. The complainant lodged an FIR in Police Station, Gohalpur. After due investigation, police had arrested the Appellant and recovered a golden chain from him. The Appellant was duly identified by the complainant in the test identification parade. After due investigation a charge sheet for offence punishable under Section 392 of I.P.C was submitted before the committal Court against the Appellant and one co accused Chhiki alias Vikas Jat. 3. The Appellant abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific defence but, he stated before the trial Court that he was falsely implicated by the Police. However, he did not adduce any evidence from his side. 4. On considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur has convicted the Appellant for offence punishable under Section 392 of I.P.C and inflicted the aforesaid sentence whereas the co-accused Chikki alias Vikas Jat was acquitted. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant does not want to challenge the conviction directed by the trial Court but, since the Appellant is a young youth of 21 years of age, who has no criminal past and who is in custody since 15.12.2008 i.e, he has undergone in custody for two years approximately and therefore, that custody period would be the appropriate sentence. On the other hand learned Panel Lawyer for the State has submitted that he has filed a copy of the various cases pending against the Appellant in the various Court to show his criminal background. 7. On the other hand learned Panel Lawyer for the State has submitted that he has filed a copy of the various cases pending against the Appellant in the various Court to show his criminal background. 7. Learned Panel Lawyer has submitted a short description of the cases pending against the Appellant. Except this appeal there are three cases pending against the Appellant. Out of that one case is registered for offence punishable under Sections 399, 402 of I.P.C and another Sessions Trial is pending for offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. The third case is pending for offence punishable under Section 392 of I.P.C. Since these three cases are pending before the trial Court it cannot be said that these were the previous cases of the Appellant. These cases may be subsequent events and therefore, for the purpose of consideration of sentence in the present appeal, it cannot be said that the Appellant has criminal past or he is a convicted person in another case. It is true that Appellant has committed robbery in the broad day light but, looking to his age and the property which was robbed, jail sentence of 23 months seems to be sufficient against the Appellant. He has completed his age of 21 years at the time of crime therefore, he is not entitled to get any advantage of Probation of Offenders Act due to his age. There is no any other ground by which he may be given an advantage of Probation of Offenders Act. Offence is grave and therefore, it would not be proper to release the Appellant by imposing some fine upon him. Since he has under gone the custody from 15.12.2008 which is almost of 23 months. Therefore, looking to the custody period there is no need to impose any fine in addition to his jail sentence. The Appellant has not deposited the fine imposed by the trial Court and therefore, if more fine is imposed then it will increase his custody period. 8. Under these circumstances looking to the age and custody period of the Appellant, it would be proper if he may be inflicted with a jail sentence which he has already under gone. 9. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed. 8. Under these circumstances looking to the age and custody period of the Appellant, it would be proper if he may be inflicted with a jail sentence which he has already under gone. 9. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed. Conviction of the Appellant for offence punishable under Section of I.P.C. is hereby maintained but, jail sentence imposed on the Appellant is hereby reduced to the period which he has already undergone in custody. Sentence of fine imposed against the Appellant is hereby quashed. 10. At present the Appellant is in custody and therefore suitable warrant be issued forthwith in compliance.