Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 503 (MP)

Imrat Singh v. State of M. P.

2012-05-08

T.K.KAUSHAL

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 29/12/2008 passed by Special Judge (Electricity) Raisen in Special Case No. 197/2007 convicting the appellants under section 379 IPC read with section 136 of Electricity Act 2003 and sentenced to 6 months R.I and with fine of Rs.1000/-. 2. Facts of the case in short are that on intervening night of 12/13-07-2007 from a road side transformer installed by Electricity Department in Village- Sadalatpur, parts of transformer have been stolen by unknown persons. 3. On the basis of information furnished by Makanlal, Lineman (PW-1), Sharad Chandra Banchode, Assistant Engineer (PW-3) submitted a written report at Police Station- Raisen. During investigation Spot Map was prepared and on 30/07/2007 appellants were arrested and stolen parts of transformer were recovered from their possession. Police Raisen submitted charge sheet against the appellants. Trial Court framed charges under section 379 IPC read with Section 136, Electricity Act against the appellants. Appellants abjured guilt. To substantiate case of the prosecution, statements of Makanlal Pawar, Lineman (PW-1), Habib Mohd. (PW-2),Sharad Chandra Banchode, Assistant Engineer (PW-3), and T.P. Tripathi, ASI (PW-4) were recorded. 4. After appreciating aforesaid evidence, Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as above. 5. Assailing the aforesaid finding of conviction and sentence, this appeal has been preferred on the grounds that appreciation of evidence is not proper. Evidence of prosecution witnesses are suffering from material contradictions and omissions. Conviction is based on insufficient and doubtful evidence. Recovery of any item has not been proved by reliable evidence. Conviction is bad in law and sentence is harsh. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer supported the findings of conviction and sentence both. 6. Makanlal, Lineman (PW-1) stated that on receiving telephonic information from Village- Sadalatpur that tranformer has been stolen. He reached on the spot and saw cover of the Transformer only. This information has been given to Lineman by Habib Mohd. (PW-2). Sharad Chandra Banchode, Assistant Engineer (PW-3) submitted a written report Ex.P-8 at Police Station- Raisen. On the basis of Ex.P-10, FIR was registered against unknown accused persons. PW-1 further stated that appellants have been arrested and they furnished information regarding the recovery of parts of transformer before him and police prepared Japti Panchayatnama for recovery of parts of transformer from them. 7. On the basis of Ex.P-10, FIR was registered against unknown accused persons. PW-1 further stated that appellants have been arrested and they furnished information regarding the recovery of parts of transformer before him and police prepared Japti Panchayatnama for recovery of parts of transformer from them. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that recovery has been made from the appellants after about 20 days of the incident, but recovery of Copper Nuts of transformer from the possession of the appellants on the basis of Ex.P-6 and Ex.P-7 leaves no doubt regarding the possession of stolen items for which they could not offer any explanation. 8. Trial Court has appreciated the evidence in right perspective. I see no error in appreciation of evidence in so far as conviction of appellants is concerned. 9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that during investigation appellants have already suffered custody period of about 8 days and for such a petty recovery this jail sentence would be just and sufficient. Further submitted that no useful purpose would be served in sending the appellants back to jail. 10. For offence under section 379 IPC read with section 136 of Electricity Act 2003 for theft of parts of transformer found proved on the basis of recovery of two copper nuts, undergone jail sentence of 8 days seems to be just, proper and sufficient, if fine amount is enhanced. For offence under section 379 IPC read with section 136 of Electricity Act 2003, 8 days undergone jail sentence and fine of Rs.3000/- seems to be just and proper and will meet the ends of justice. In default of payment of fine the appellants shall undergo 2 months simple imprisonment. 11. Appellants are directed to remain present before the trial court on or before 17th July, 2012 to deposit the balance fine amount or to undergo default sentence as the case may be. 12. Appeal is allowed in part as indicated above.