Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 828 (MP)

Rustom v. State of M. P.

2019-11-28

VIRENDER SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. The appellant has approached this Court against the order dated 19.7.2019 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Sessions Trial No. 75/2019 convicting the appellant under section 379 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo two years RI with fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulations for stealing “Tufan” vehicle bearing registration No. MP-13-BA-1484 from Gandhi Nagar, Ujjain. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 4.9.2018 Shahrukh lodged a FIR at police station Chimanganj Mandi, Ujjain alleging that in the night of 3/4 -September/2018, he had gone to sleep after parking his silver colour Tufan vehicle bearing registration No. MP-BA-1484 engine No. D-27057914 Chasis No. MC1D4DAA 9CP022218. In the morning, he did not find his vehicle. Some unknown person has stolen the vehicle. The report Ex.P-1 was registered at crime No. 862/2018 under section 379 of the IPC and investigated by the police. 3. Another Crime No. 918/2018 of theft was also registered at the same police station. In that Crime No. 918/2018, the police had arrested the appellant and interrogated him. He revealed before the police that along with three other vehicles, he had also stolen the vehicle in question in the present case and had sold it to Shyam Mali of Alirajpur. After receiving this information, the police reached to the house of Shyam Mali and found a vehicle standing outside his house with a registration No.GJ-17-C2310 engine No. D27057914 and Chasis No. T55003044A98. On tallying with the engine number, the registered number of the vehicle was found MP-13-BA-1484, which was registered number of the vehicle stolen in the present case bearing Crime No. 862/2018, therefore, the police seized the vehicle and arrested the appellant and co-accused Shyam Mali. 4. The police further investigated the case and after other usual investigation filed charge sheet against the appellant, which culminated in his conviction and the conviction is confirmed by the appellant Court as stated in para No. 1 above. 5. The appellant has preferred this appeal on several grounds but during arguments learned counsel has submitted that she does not want to press merits of the case. Her only contention is that the sentence of the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone. It is submitted that the appellant is a young age man, belongs to a poor family and is sole breadwinner of family having minor children. Her only contention is that the sentence of the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone. It is submitted that the appellant is a young age man, belongs to a poor family and is sole breadwinner of family having minor children. No one else is there to take care of his family. Due to imprisonment, his family facing financial hardship and it has become difficult for them to survive. The police has foisted false cases of vehicle theft upon him. Nothing is recovered from his possession. No vehicle is recovered from his possession. He has spent 14 months in jail out of 24 months imprisonment and with remission he has completed almost 18 months imprisonment. Therefore, his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that looking to the nature of the case, the appellant is not entitled for any leniency. 7. Considering the nature of the incident and other facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, the ends of justice would be sub-served if the sentence of the appellant is reduced to some extent, therefore, this appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellant recorded by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain for the offence under section 379 of the IPC is confirmed. So far as sentence awarded to him is concerned, it is modified to the extent that he is awarded imprisonment of one and half year with fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine, further to undergo six months RI. 8. The order of trial Court regarding disposal of case property is hereby confirmed. 9. With the aforesaid modification, the present appeal stands disposed off. 10. All the IAs pending in this appeal stand closed. ..........