Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1147 (MP)

Kamal Kanjar v. State of M. P.

2012-11-06

N.K.GUPTA

body2012
Judgment N.K. Gupta, J;- 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 22.5.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dindori in S.T. No. 25/11, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC and sentenced for seven years' R.I. with fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine one year's R.I. The prosecution's case, in short is that, on 20.1.2011 at about 1:00 p.m. in the noon, the complainant Chhotelal Netam (PW-1) went to the State Bank of India at Dindori. He had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 30,000/- and kept in a bag. Thereafter, he went to the Collectorate by an auto-rickshaw. When he was coming out from the collectorate, two persons came on the motorcycle and snatched his bag and robbed a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. During the investigation, the appellant was arrested and a stamp purchased in the name of Chhotelal was found with the appellant and also passbook etc. were seized from the appellant. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the C.J.M. Dindori, who committed the case to the Sessions Court. 2. The appellant abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific plea in the case and no defence evidence was adduced. 3. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the prosecution's evidence convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the appellant does not want to challenge the conviction directed against him, but he prays for reduction of the sentence. The learned Sessions Judge considered the gravity of the offence only, but it is nowhere considered that the appellant was a youth of 20 years of age at the time of the incident and he was the first offender. No substantial amount was seized from the appellant and he remained in the custody for approximately 18 months' during the trial and appeal. Therefore looking to his age, the fact that the appellant was the first offender and his 18 months' custody period, which appears to be an appropriate sentence for the offence committed by the appellant. However, some fine amount may be increased. 6. Therefore looking to his age, the fact that the appellant was the first offender and his 18 months' custody period, which appears to be an appropriate sentence for the offence committed by the appellant. However, some fine amount may be increased. 6. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby partly accepted. The conviction directed for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC is hereby affirmed but the sentence is reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody, whereas fine is enhanced from the sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the sum of Rs. 5,000/-. The appellant is directed to deposit the remaining fine amount before the trial Court within two months' from today, failing which he shall undergo for one year's R.I. 7. According to the record, the appellant is on bail but no bail papers are received from the trial Court and therefore, the Registry is directed to verify as to whether the appellant is on bail or not. If he is in the custody then, a supper-session warrant be issued accordingly, and if he is on bail then it is directed that his bail bonds shall stand discharged. A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information and compliance.