Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1375 (MP)

MANOJ KUMAR SHUKLA v. STATE OF M. P.

2011-12-07

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2011
JUDGMENT : 1. This revision is directed on behalf of the applicant/accused being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10-1-2007, passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in Cr. Appeal No. 382/2006 affirming the judgment dated 27-7-2005 passed by JFMC Sagar in Cr. Case No. 1468/99 convicting the applicant for the offence of section 392 of Indian Penal Code with a direction to undergo for one year RI with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of depositing the fine further thirty days simple imprisonment. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that on 29-5-1990 at about 1.30 O'clock in the night complainant Pradeep Agrawal after stepping down from a bus, at Motinagar Square, Sagar was going towards his home on the way he was intercepted by two unknown persons and was asked to give the search of his bag to them, on which after showing travelling ticket he permitted them to carry out the search of his bag. During the course of such search the aforesaid culprits had fled away along with his bag having some silver ornaments along with some solid silver near about 1½ kg and also Rs. 5,370/- in cash and some old silver coins. After reaching to his home he narrated the incident to his parents and brother, immediately thereafter he lodged a report at P. S. Motinagar, Sagar. In the course of investigation the applicant and one co-accused Neeraj Bohre were arrested and on disclosing the information regarding the place of the concealment of the stolen articles by them their memorandum under section 27 of Evidence Act were recorded and pursuant to the same at their instance some of the stolen articles were recovered. The culprits as well as the stolen articles were identified by complainant Pradeep Kumar Agrawal on holding the test identification parade. On completion of investigation the applicant along with co-accused was charge-sheeted. After framing the charge of section 392 of Indian Penal Code the trial was held. After recording the evidence on appreciation of the same by holding guilty to the applicant for the aforesaid offence he was punished with the sentence as stated above. On filing the appeal the same was dismissed, on which the applicant has come forward to this Court with this revision. 3. After recording the evidence on appreciation of the same by holding guilty to the applicant for the aforesaid offence he was punished with the sentence as stated above. On filing the appeal the same was dismissed, on which the applicant has come forward to this Court with this revision. 3. Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel of the applicant without challenging the findings of the Courts below holding guilty to the applicant for the aforesaid offence advanced his limited submission only for reducing the jail sentence awarded by the Courts below, up to the period for which he has already suffered in the judicial custody for 29 days between 4-6-1990 to 2-7-1990 and also near about seven months between 23-8-2006 to 23-3-2007, subsequent to the judgment of the trial Court till his release on 23-3-2007 in compliance of the order of this Court dated 15-3-2007 whereby his remaining jail sentence was suspended. He submits that except the present offence no other criminal antecedent has been reported against the applicant till now. In such premises, he being first offender by adopting some lenient view instead to send him again jail his awarded sentence be reduced up to the aforesaid period for which he has already undergone and prayed to allow this revision accordingly. 4. On the other hand Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Dy. Government Advocate by justifying the impugned conviction and sentence of the applicant said that the same being based on proper appreciation of evidence is in conformity with law, it does not require any interference at this stage under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court either for extending the benefit of acquittal to the applicant or to reduce his jail sentence awarded by the Courts below and prayed for dismissal of this revision. 5. Having heard the learned counsel, keeping in view their arguments on going through the record of the Courts below including the impugned judgments, I have not found any perversity, irregularity or illegality in appreciation of evidence by any of the Courts below in holding guilty to the applicant for the aforesaid offence. Therefore, it is held that there is no scope in the matter to extend the benefit of acquittal to the applicant, pursuant to it the findings of the Courts below in this regard are hereby affirmed. 6. Therefore, it is held that there is no scope in the matter to extend the benefit of acquittal to the applicant, pursuant to it the findings of the Courts below in this regard are hereby affirmed. 6. After affirming the conviction of the applicant, I proceed to consider the prayer of the applicant's counsel for reducing the jail sentence. In the available factual matrix of the case, I have found some substance in it. It is apparent from the record that except the present case no any other criminal antecedent has been reported against the applicant. I have also not been apprised by the State counsel with any criminal records of the applicant. 7. Apart the above it is also apparent from the record that applicant has suffered near about eight months jail sentence either in judicial custody or subsequent to judgment of the trial/Appellate Court, as submitted by the applicant's counsel, the same is also found to be correct on verification from the record. Thus, taking into consideration that substantial part of the awarded jail sentence has already been suffered by the applicant, I deem fit to reduce his jail sentence up to the period for which he has already undergone by enhancing some amount of fine. 8. Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion, by affirming the conviction of the applicant under section 392 of Indian Penal Code, this revision is allowed in part and the awarded jail sentence of the applicant under such section is hereby reduced from one year to the aforesaid period of near about eight months for which he has already undergone by enhancing the amount of fine from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 3,000/-. The enhancement amount of fine is to be deposited by the applicant in the trial Court within forty five days from today, failing in depositing such enhanced sum of fine within the aforesaid period the applicant has to suffer further three months RI. The bail bonds of the applicant are hereby discharged. Till this extent the impugned judgment is modified while other findings of the same are hereby affirmed. 9. Revision is allowed in part as indicated above.