Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1505 (MP)

Anil v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2013-12-03

N.K.GUPTA

body2013
ORDER The applicant has challenged the judgment dated 22.9.1999 passed by Special Railway Magistrate, Bhopal in Criminal Case No. 2766/1999 whereby he was convicted for offence punishable under Section 379 of I.P.C. and sentenced for two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/-. The applicant has also challenged the judgment dated 3.11.1999 passed by the learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Appeal No.184/1999 whereby his conviction was maintained whereas sentence was reduced to R.I. for the period of one year with fine of Rs.5000/-. 2. The prosecution case in short is that, on 18.5.1999 the complainant R. K. Sharma went to the railway platform of Bhopal Station to see off the family of his Superior Officer. In the meantime, someone snatched his purse having a sum of Rs.14,800/-, his driving license and a memo issued by MPSRTC addressed to the Outpost Hanumanganj, Bhopal. He had lodged an FIR on 18.5.1999. On 28.5.1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion and a sum of Rs.7300/- along with driving license of the victim as well as the letter issued by MPSRTC was found with the applicant and, therefore, a charge-sheet was filed before the Special Railway Magistrate, Bhopal. 3. The learned Special Railway Magistrate after considering the evidence adduced convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above whereas in appeal the sentence was modified. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The victim R. K. Sharma has proved the FIR and he has proved that the driving license with the authority letter issued by MPSRTC and a sum of Rs.14,800/- were stolen from him at Bhopal Railway Station. The applicant was not arrested for enquiry relating to the crime registered on the FIR of the complainant but he was arrested when cash of Rs.7300/- along with the driving license of Shri. Sharma was recovered from him under Section 41(1)(4) of Cr.P.C. and, therefore, witnesses related to seizure cannot be disbelieved. Since the currency notes could not be identified the applicant could not be considered as a thief but, the driving license of the victim was found with the applicant and, therefore, it was the stolen property. Hence both the Courts below have rightly presumed under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that the applicant was a thief. Since the currency notes could not be identified the applicant could not be considered as a thief but, the driving license of the victim was found with the applicant and, therefore, it was the stolen property. Hence both the Courts below have rightly presumed under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that the applicant was a thief. After considering the evidence adduced against the applicant there is no basis by which any interference can be done in the concurrent findings given by both the Courts below relating to the conviction for offence punishable under section 379 of I.P.C. and, therefore, the present revision cannot be accepted against the conviction. 6. However, so far as the sentence is concerned, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant can be accepted that the applicant was only 21 years old at the time of the incident and no previous criminal record of him was shown before the trial Court and, therefore, if he was not released on probation he could be punished with sentence of fine only looking to his age and his offence. However, he remained in the custody for 5 months and 27 days and he has faced the trial, appeal and revision for last 14 years. Under such circumstances, the sentence directed against the applicant can be reduced to the period for which he remained in custody. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion the revision filed by the applicant Anil s/o Sahdeo Yadav is hereby partly allowed. The conviction under Section 379 of I.P.C. is hereby maintained but sentence is reduced to the period for which he remained in custody. No change in fine amount. 8. The applicant is on bail. His presence is no more required before this Court and, therefore, it is directed that his bail bonds shall stand discharged. 9. Copy of the order be sent to both the Courts below along with their records for information. Order accordingly.