Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Kumar Yadav vs State Of M.P on 11 January, 2012
1
Cr.A.No.2107/1996
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH : TARUN KUMAR KAUSHAL, J.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2107/1996
Ramesh Kumar Yadav @ Rammu Yadav,
aged about 23 years, R/o Purani Basti,
Ghansaur, Tehsil Lakhnadon,
District Seoni (M.P.) ... Appellant
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh ... Respondent
For Appellant : Shri Abhay Gupta, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Shri Swapnil Ganguli, Panel Lawyer
JUDGMENT
11.01.2012 This appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 08.11.1996 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge Seoni in S.T. No. 136/90 convicting the appellant under Section 392 of IPC for committing robbery of Rs. 4,000/ on Dhanabai (PW1) and sentenced to R.I. for 2 years and with fine of Rs. 200/.
2. Facts of the case, in short, are that on 21.05.90 at about 2:00 p.m. Dhanabai (PW1) withdrew Rs. 3,995/ from the State Bank, Branch Ghansaur after encashment of cheque issued by block in the respect of construction of well. Appellant was also present in the Branch at that time. He helped PW1 in counting the rupees. While PW1 came out of bank and was going towards her house, appellant snatched aforesaid money putting her under threat by showing knife. Santosh (PW2) son of PW1 saw the incident. PW1 lodged FIR at police station Ghansaur next day i.e. on 22.05.90. A case under Section 392 of IPC was registered at Crime No. 52/90 against the 2 Cr.A.No.2107/1996 appellant. Appellant was arrested on 07.06.90. He furnished information regarding aforesaid looted amount. However neither knife nor the amount was recovered.
3. Completing investigation, police Ghansaur citing 11 witnesses and submitted a chargesheet against the appellant under Section 392 of IPC.
4. On perusal of the chargesheet, concerned magistrate found that to be a case under Section 398 of IPC and committed to the Courts of Sessions for the trial. Charge under Section 392 of IPC was framed on the appellant. Appellant abjured guilt.
5. Defence of the appellant in the Trial Court was that of false implication stating that aforesaid amount has been voluntarily given by PW1 to him against the expenses incurred in labour and material for construction of well.
6. To substantiate the case of prosecution statements of Dhanabai (PW1), Santosh (PW2), Trilok Singh (PW3), Vinod Jaiswal (PW4), Sanjay Singh Sisodhiya (PW5), Kedarnath, A.S.I. (PW6) were recorded. To substantiate the defence statement of the appellant, Basant Kumar Dongre (DW1)and Radheshyam Yadav (DW2) were recorded.
7. Appreciating the aforesaid evidences, Trial Court acquitted the appellant of charge under Section 398 of IPC, however, convicted him under Section 392 of IPC and sentenced as above.
8. Challenging the conviction and sentence, this appeal has been preferred on the grounds that appreciation of evidence is not proper. Appellant has been convicted on the basis of insufficient and doubtful evidence. Conviction is bad in law and sentence is harsh.
9. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer supported the findings of conviction and sentence.
10. Dhanabai (PW1) stated that she withdrew Rs. 3,995/ from the bank which was snatched by the appellant on the road outside the 3 Cr.A.No.2107/1996 bank. This incident was witnessed by his son Santosh (PW2) and he has narrated the incident to her husband at residence. Next day she lodged FIR Ex.P1. She had denied suggestion that she took the appellant to the bank herself for giving this amount to him after withdrawal.
11. FIR has been lodged by PW1 next day of the incident. In her crossexamination PW1 tried to explain the delay of 23 days, but it is of no consequences. Santosh (PW2) also supported the fact that appellant snatched Rs. 4,000/ from his mother PW1.
12. Trial Court has taken into consideration the contradictions and omissions crept in statements of aforesaid witnesses and accordingly extended the benefit of doubt to the extent acquitted of appellant under Section 398 of IPC. On careful perusal of the statements of prosecution witnesses, it is revealed that there is no recovery of money from the appellant. He was arrested after about two weeks of the incident. There was no recovery of knife from him. Evidence regarding use of force at the time of snatching money is also doubtful and insufficient.
13. In my considered opinion, it is a case where by the act of the appellant PW1 suffered a wrongful loss of Rs. 4,000/ and appellant wrongly gained Rs. 4,000/. Money was taken by the appellant in wrongful manner with dishonest intention. This is not a way to settle and realize the amount if it is due in respect of construction of well. Hence conviction of appellant under Section 392 of IPC is not sustainable and is set aside, however, appellant is convicted under Section 379 of IPC.
14. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that this incident occurred about more than 20 years ago. Appellant was a young boy of the age of 23 years only at the time of incident. There was no criminal background of the appellant whatsoever.
4 Cr.A.No.2107/199615. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, jail sentence would serve no purpose. For an offence under Section 379 of IPC appellant is sentenced with fine of Rs. 5,000/, in default of payment of fine, appellant shall undergo sentence of 2 months simple imprisonment. Rs. 4,000/ shall be given as compensation to Dhanabai (PW1). Appeal is allowed in part on the point of sentence as above.
16. Appellant is directed to appear before the Trial Court on or before 12.03.2012 to deposite the balance fine amount or to undergo default sentence as the case may be.
Appeal is allowed in part as indicated above.
(TARUN KUMAR KAUSHAL) JUDGE ak