1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
PRINCIPAL SEAT, JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH
PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI N. K. GUPTA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1645/2010
Sarman
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
............................................................................................................
For the appellant : Shri G.P. Tripathi, Advocate.
For the respondent: Shri R. N. Yadav, Panel Lawyer.
............................................................................................................
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on this 18th day of November, 2010)
The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment
dated 16.8.2010, passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in
S.T. No.208/2009, by which he was convicted for offence punishable
under Section 392 of I.P.C. and inflicted with the sentence of rigorous
imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.1000/-; in default of
payment of fine he was to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for
one month.
2. The prosecution story in short is that, on 23.11.2008 the
complainant Shashi Jain had visited Jain Temple at Shiv Nagar with her
daughter Rekha Jain. At about 6.30 p.m when she was returning back
from the temple to her house situated at Hanumantal, someone snatched
her golden chain from her neck. Chain was snatched by three persons
riding on a motor cycle. The complainant lodged an FIR in Police Station,
Gohalpur. After due investigation, police had arrested the appellant and
recovered a golden chain from him. The appellant was duly identified by
the complainant in the test identification parade. After due investigation a
charge sheet for offence punishable under Section 392 of I.P.C was
submitted before the committal Court against the appellant and one co-
2
accused Chhiki alias Vikas Jat.
3. The appellant abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific
defence but, he stated before the trial Court that he was falsely implicated
by the Police. However, he did not adduce any evidence from his side.
4. On considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur has convicted the appellant for
offence punishable under Section 392 of I.P.C and inflicted the aforesaid
sentence whereas the co-accused Chikki alias Vikas Jat was acquitted.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant does
not want to challenge the conviction directed by the trial Court but, since
the appellant is a young youth of 21 years of age, who has no criminal
past and who is in custody since 15.12.2008 i.e, he has undergone in
custody for two years approximately and therefore, that custody period
would be the appropriate sentence. On the other hand learned Panel
Lawyer for the State has submitted that he has filed a copy of the various
cases pending against the appellant in the various Court to show his
criminal background.
7. Learned Panel Lawyer has submitted a short description of the cases
pending against the appellant. Except this appeal there are three cases
pending against the appellant. Out of that one case is registered for
offence punishable under Sections 399, 402 of I.P.C and another Sessions
Trial is pending for offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. The
third case is pending for offence punishable under Section 392 of I.P.C.
Since these three cases are pending before the trial Court it cannot be
said that these were the previous cases of the appellant. These cases
may be subsequent events and therefore, for the purpose of consideration
3
of sentence in the present appeal, it cannot be said that the appellant has
criminal past or he is a convicted person in another case. It is true that
appellant has committed robbery in the broad day light but, looking to his
age and the property which was robbed, jail sentence of 23 months
seems to be sufficient against the appellant. He has completed his age
of 21 years at the time of crime therefore, he is not entitled to get any
advantage of Probation of Offenders Act due to his age. There is no any
other ground by which he may be given an advantage of Probation of
Offenders Act. Offence is grave and therefore, it would not be proper to
release the appellant by imposing some fine upon him. Since he has
under gone the custody from 15.12.2008 which is almost of 23 months.
Therefore, looking to the custody period there is no need to impose any
fine in addition to his jail sentence. The appellant has not deposited the
fine imposed by the trial Court and therefore, if more fine is imposed then
it will increase his custody period.
8. Under these circumstances looking to the age and custody period of
the appellant, it would be proper if he may be inflicted with a jail sentence
which he has already under gone.
9. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal of the appellant
is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under
Section 392 of I.P.C. is hereby maintained but, jail sentence imposed on
the appellant is hereby reduced to the period which he has already
undergone in custody. Sentence of fine imposed against the appellant is
hereby quashed.
10. At present the appellant is in custody and therefore suitable
warrant be issued forthwith in compliance.
(N.K.GUPTA)
JUDGE
18.11.2010
bina
4