Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepak Saket vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27363
1 CRR-603-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 23rd OF JUNE, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 603 of 2025
DEEPAK SAKET
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Kumar Sen - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Raj - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 737 of 2025
PAWAN SINGH @ GOLU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Hemant Sen - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Pankaj Raj - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
With the consent of the parties, these Criminal Revisions are finally heard at the motion hearing stage.
2. Both the Criminal Revisions are being decided simultaneously by a common order as both the cases are arising out of the same judgment of trial Court as well as the Appellate Court.
3. The applicant Deepak has filed this criminal revision Signature Not Verified Signed by: APARNA TRIPATHI Signing time: 27-06-2025 10:24:48 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27363 2 CRR-603-2025 No.603/2025 under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.01.2025 passed by 11 th Additional Sessions Judge, Satna, District Satna in Criminal Appeal No.151/2024 arising out of judgment dated 29.07.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Satna, District Satna (M.P.) in Criminal Case No.931/2023 affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court whereby the applicant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 457 and 380/511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively, with default stipulations.
4. Applicant Pawan has filed this criminal revision No.737/2025 under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the BNSS against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.01.2025 passed by 11 th Additional Sessions Judge, Satna, District Satna in Criminal Appeal No.152/2024 arising out of judgment dated 29.07.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Satna, District Satna (M.P.) in Criminal Case No.931/2023 affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court whereby the applicant has been convicted under Sections 457 and 380/511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively, with default stipulations.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: APARNA TRIPATHI Signing time: 27-06-2025 10:24:48NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27363 3 CRR-603-2025
5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the Bank Manager Pushpendra Dwivedi (PW-1) has stated that nothing was stolen from his bank and thus conviction is solely based upon the CCTV footage that was handed over in form of pen drive (Article A-1) to the Investigating Officer. Bank Manager had not verified the certificate issued by him that he had signed the certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act and trial Court as well as Appellate Court has convicted the applicants on the basis that the jacket, sandal, chuda and the clothes by which the faces were wrapped by the offenders, have been recovered from the possession of the applicants. Though, the Investigating Officer has clearly admitted the suggestion that the articles recovered from the possession of the applicants are found in the market and can be purchased from the market but both the Courts have not considered these aspects, hence, committed an error in passing the judgment.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed and has supported the judgment and order of the trial Court as well as Appellate Court and submitted that certificate of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act has been proved by the Investigating Officer and the clothes that the offenders were wearing at the time of offence, have been recovered from the possession of the applicants and the tools used for opening the lock and breaking the shutter have also been recovered from the possession of the applicants. No illegality have been committed by Signature Not Verified Signed by: APARNA TRIPATHI Signing time: 27-06-2025 10:24:48 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27363 4 CRR-603-2025 the trial Court as well as Appellate Court, hence, there is no substance in the revision, therefore, revision be dismissed.
7. Heard the parties and perused the record.
8. In nutshell, the prosecution case before the trial Court was that in Village Hata in the jurisdiction of Police Station Sabhapur, Satna. There was a Branch of Punjab National Bank. On 24.03.2023 at 6:30 PM, the bank was closed by Bank Manager Pushpendra Dwivedi (PW-1) and the next day i.e. 25.03.2023, that was a non-working Saturday. On 26.03.2023, Pushpendra Dwivedi (PW-1) got the information from Uttam Tripathi (PW-3) that the shutter and channel of his Bank has been broken and the gate of the Bank has been opened, on that he intimated to the senior officers and filed a written report (Ex.P/1) to Station Officer of the Police Sabhapur, District Satna. On that basis, FIR as a crime No.49/2023 was registered under Sections 457, 380 r/w 511 of IPC. After enquiry, it was found that nothing had been stolen from the Bank but someone was attempted to theft. CCTV footage of the Bank was checked and it was found that firstly two persons entered into the Bank at 1:00 AM and after that at 2:00 AM again, two persons with wrapped faces and gloves in hands, having a sabbal entered into the Bank and opened the almirah and cash counter but cash box was not broken and no currency or articles were stolen. The applicants were arrested and from their possession, sabbal, sandal and a jacket having hoody were recovered. After trial, the trial Court convicted the applicants acquitting Signature Not Verified Signed by: APARNA TRIPATHI Signing time: 27-06-2025 10:24:48 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27363 5 CRR-603-2025 other two co-accused persons of the case.
9. Witness Pushpendra Dwivedi (PW-1), Ghan Shyam Murha (PW-2), Umesh Kumar Tripathi (PW-3) and Satyajeet Urmaliya (PW-8) have stated that in the intervening night of 25-26.03.2023, two unknown persons entered into their Bank for theft, shutter, channel and lock were broken but cash box was intact and almirah was opened. On checking through CCTV, it was found that two persons wrapped the clothes in their faces, entered into Bank having some tools and as the persons had covered their faces, they could not identify those persons.
10. The independent witnesses Pushpendra Dwivedi (PW-1), Jitendra Kumar Pandey (PW-6) and Shashikant Tiwari (PW-7) have also not supported the prosecution case and stated that they have handed over the pen drive to the Investigating Officer but he has not stated anything regarding Ex.P/17. The prosecution witness that was the witness of the disclosure of the applicants and recovery of the incriminating article, has not supported the prosecution case. Witness Anjani Kumar Tripathi (PW-4) has supported that the pen drive was recovered from the possession of the Bank Manager Pushpendra Dwivedi (PW-1).
11. Investigating Officer L.P. Singh has submitted that FIR was registered and from the possession of the Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Jhota, he recovered a pen drive of 32 GB, Sandisk Company in which CCTV footage was copied and prepared the seizure memo Ex.P/4 and Pushpendra Dwivedi (PW-1) has also issued the Signature Not Verified Signed by: APARNA TRIPATHI Signing time: 27-06-2025 10:24:48 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27363 6 CRR-603-2025 certified copy under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act i.e. Ex.P/17 and this witness has further stated that he had arrested the applicants and from their disclosure, the incriminating articles have been recovered and regarding applicant Deepak, he has stated that sabbal, clothes and slippers were recovered and seizure memo Ex.P/10 was prepared. In the same way, from applicant Pawan, iron pipe, shoes and the cloth by which he had wrapped his face, were recovered and the memorandum Ex.P/8 and seizure memo Ex.P/12 were prepared.
12. Before the trial Court, the pen drive was played in the system and the trial Court has marked that one person is shown wearing a grey color jacket having a hoody and in front there was a chain and he was wearing sandals, there was a patta in front and other person is shown wearing a red coloured block printed towel by which, he had covered his face and was wearing pant, jacket and black colored shoes and was having a pipe in his hand and in the right hand, he was wearing a steel chuda and their moments were seen in the CCTV footage.
13. Investigating Officer has further stated that these were the applicants but in the cross-examination, this witness has also admitted that the clothes, shoes and the towel which the person shown in the video clip, were wearing, are available in the market.
14. Thus, the whole case is based on the CCTV footage and the recovery of the articles were made from the possession of the applicants but no memo was prepared to match the articles/clothes, shoes and Signature Not Verified Signed by: APARNA TRIPATHI Signing time: 27-06-2025 10:24:48 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27363 7 CRR-603-2025 chuda by any expert that the clothes that have been recovered from the possession of the applicants and the persons wearing clothes and shoes shown in the CCTV footage are same. When the articles are available in the market, this possibility cannot be ruled out that similar articles showing that this has been recovered from the applicants may be put to solve the case. There is also important fact that original hard disk of the CCTV was not preserved and neither it was sent for FSL examination or copied by any expert and after that the copy of the CCTV footage was not preserved.
15. In Ex.P/17, it has been mentioned that the recording was copied in the pen drive and handed over to police officer and no tampering was done but regarding the possession and the accuracy of the hard disk of the CCTV, has not been mentioned clearly as required under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act and the signatures of the issuing authority has not been proved.
16. Looking all these facts, the prosecution failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt but the trial Court and Appellate Court has not considered this aspect and convicted the applicant.
17. Hence as discussed above, the revision is allowed and the conviction of the applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 r/w 511 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside and as a result, the sentence imposed upon the applicants is also set aside.
18. The applicants, if not required in any other case be released Signature Not Verified Signed by: APARNA TRIPATHI Signing time: 27-06-2025 10:24:48 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27363 8 CRR-603-2025 forthwith. The fine amount deposited, be refunded to them. The order of the disposal of the case property is affirmed.
19. With the copy of this order, record of trial Court as well as Appellate Court be returned back.
20. It is also worth mentioned that this Court has received the record of the RCT No.742/2023 but no appeal has been filed regarding this, hence, this record should be returned to the concerned Court with the intimation that this record was not required in the appeal filed before us.
21. A copy of this order be kept in connected case.
22. With the above terms, the Criminal Revision is allowed.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA) JUDGE AT Signature Not Verified Signed by: APARNA TRIPATHI Signing time: 27-06-2025 10:24:48