Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 510 (MP)

Shivram v. State of M. P.

2012-05-09

S.R.WAGHMARE

body2012
ORDER 1. This is the revision of the year 2011 has been filed under section 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.02.11 passed by 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Appeal No.02/2011 whereby the petitioners were convicted for offence punishable under section 379 of the IPC and sentenced to 1 year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- each; in case of default of payment of fine they were to undergo additional one month imprisonment each. 2. Brief facts necessary for elucidation are that on 10.06.03 line man Shantilal informed Asst. Engineer, M.P. Vidyut Mandal, Betma that in the night of 8.06.03 somebody had committed theft of electrical aluminium wire of 2800 metre which was approximately of cost of Rs.45,000/-. The matter was reported at the police station. Upon the complaint of the complainant case was registered against the petitioners. After arrest, framing of charge and recording of evidence, petitioners were convicted as stated above, hence the present revision. 3. Counsel for the petitioners has urged that the conviction is contrary to the principles of law. The Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence and there are material omissions and contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Counsel has candidly stated that the petitioners have already undergone 6 months of the custodial sentence and prosecution has been unable to prove the offence under section 379 of the IPC. Moreover, if at all this was first offence by the petitioners, counsel prayed that the judgment of conviction be set-aside. In alternate Counsel has prayed that if the Court is satisfied regarding the conviction the custodial sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. 4. Learned Counsel for the State has per contra submitted that there is concurrent finding against the petitioners and the judgment of the Appellate Court is in accordance with law and does not require any interference and the revision filed by the petitioners be dismissed. 5. On considering the above submissions, I find that the impugned order is based on valid and cogent reasons and proper marshalling of evidence and no infirmity can be found with the impugned judgment of the trial Court. I have no hesitation in upholding the conviction for the accused for offence under section 379 of the IPC. 5. On considering the above submissions, I find that the impugned order is based on valid and cogent reasons and proper marshalling of evidence and no infirmity can be found with the impugned judgment of the trial Court. I have no hesitation in upholding the conviction for the accused for offence under section 379 of the IPC. However, the alternate prayer of the counsel for the petitioners being limited and reasonable is allowed in the interest of justice. The custodial sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the fine amount is enhanced further by Rs.3,000/- which shall be given to the complainant Electricity Department as compensation under section 357 of the Cr.P.C. within a period of two months from the date of this judgment. On failure to pay the fine within the stipulated period the petitioners shall undergo the remaining sentence as directed by the lower Court. 6. With the aforesaid modification the appeal is partly allowed to the extent herein above indicated. Petitioners are on bail. Their bail bonds are hereby discharged. 7. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned lower Court for compliance.