Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay @ Sanju @ Kalu Balai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:65512
1 CRA-859-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 11th OF DECEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 859 of 2013
SANJAY @ SANJU @ KALU BALAI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Ms. Mamta Dubey, learned counsel for appellant.
Shri Rajeev Pandey, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
By the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by 10th Additional Session Judge, Bhopal, in ST No.663/2011 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 392 of IPC and sentenced to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs.200/- and in default stipulations.
2. As per the prosecution story, on 10/04/2009, at around 8:50 pm, the complainant and Mrs. Mehta were walking near the complainant's house. As they turned towards the corner leading to their home, a boy riding a black scooter approached them from behind. The boy snatched the gold mangalsutra of the complainant and quickly fled the scene. The complainant saw the boy from behind. The accused was wearing a white brown checkered shirt and Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI RONALD VICTOR Signing time: 18-12-2025 16:13:34 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:65512 2 CRA-859-2013 was described as healthy. The stolen gold mangalsutra weighed approximately half tola and had double-line pearls.
3. Appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried.
4. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses and appreciating the evidence led by the parties, learned Trial Court found the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sections 392 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned preceding paragraph No.1. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment, the appellant has preferred this criminal appeal before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the present appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The appellant has not been identified in the Identification Parade, which fact has been supported by Rajkumar (PW/2) as well as Smt. Yasha (PW/7), therefore, the identity of present appellant is not established. As far as the seizure of mangalsutra and its identification is concerned, which is also doubtful in light of the statements particularly from the cross-examination of the witnesses. Therefore, he prays for allowing the appeal and for acquittal.
6. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer has vehemently opposed the appeal on the ground that the learned trial Court has appropriately considered the material on record and rightly found the present appellant guilty of the offence, though the identification of present Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI RONALD VICTOR Signing time: 18-12-2025 16:13:34 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:65512 3 CRA-859-2013 appellant in person is not proved but the identification of the looted property mangalsutra is proved beyond doubt vide memo Exhibit P/8, which has been proved by the statement of complainant Rajkumari (PW/2) and Sandhaya Chaturvedi (PW/4), who has conducted this Identification Parade. Both the witnesses remain intact in their cross- examination and therefore, she prays for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. The complainant Rajkumari (PW/2) has stated in her statement that on the date of offence she was going from Jain temple to her home. When she reached near her home, a person on scooter has came there and snatched her mangalsutra and fled away. Thereafter, she lodged an FIR at Police Station, Kohefija as (Ex.P/5). Mangalsutra is made of gold. The police has prepared the spot map as Ex.P/6.
9. The aforesaid statement of Rajkumari (PW/2) has not been challenged by the accused and therefore, the statement as aforesaid remain intact, which established as the story of prosecution genuine and reliable that the mangalsutra is made of gold of Rajkumari (PW/2) has been looted on the date of incident. This story has further supported by FIR (Ex.P/5) and spot map (Ex.P/6).
10. As far as the identify of present appellant is concerned, as the person who snatched the gold mangalsutra of Rajkumari (PW/2), Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI RONALD VICTOR Signing time: 18-12-2025 16:13:34 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:65512 4 CRA-859-2013 the prosecution has conducted Test Identification Parade but Rajkumari (PW/2) has categorically stated in her chief examination that she has been called at Central Jail for identification of accused but she could not identified the accused. The identification memo is Ex.P/7. Similarly, the statement of Yash (PW/7), who conducted this Identification Parade while she was posted as Naib Tehsildar and Executive Magistrate, Nazulvrit, Bhopal. She has categorically stated that in Identification Parade, complainant could not identified the accused/present appellant. Therefore, the identity as per identification memo Ex.P/7 of present appellant is not established.
11. The prosecution has adduced the evidence in respect of the memorandum of present appellant and in pursuance thereof the seizure of looted gold mangalsutra from the possession of present appellant. In this respect, C.P. Dwivedi (PW/8) has stated categorically that on receiving the information of informant, he has arrested the present appellant and interrogate him. The present appellant has stated in his memorandum under Section 27 of Evidence Act that he has concealed gold mangalsutra in his house situated in village Sonageer District Khandwa. At the instance of present appellant and on producing by the present appellant from his house, a gold mangalsutra has been seized as per seizure memo (Ex.P/13) along with other ornaments. It is categorically stated by this Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI RONALD VICTOR Signing time: 18-12-2025 16:13:34 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:65512 5 CRA-859-2013 witness that as per para 15 of Ex.P/2 gold mangalsutra weighted 54 gram valued Rs.12,300/- has been seized by him. In cross- examination, Para 10 & 11, he categorically stated that the seized gold mangalsutra was intact, it was not in broken condition. It is also stated that the metal gold has soft tendency, therefore, it was not inevitable that while snatching the mangalsutra it goes into pieces.
12. The witnesses of memorandum and seizure, C.P. Sharma (PW/1) is the witness of memorandum (Ex.P/1) and Chhote Babu (PW/3) have turned hostile and did not support the story of prosecution. Manoj Singh (PW/5) is the witness of arrest memo of present appellant (Ex.P/10) has supported this memorandum of arrest. Gajraj (PW/6) who is the witness of arrest memo and memorandum of present appellant is supported this documents Ex.P/1 & Ex.P/3 and stated that present appellant has given information regarding recovery of looted article mangalsutra, which has been concealed by him in house situated in Sonageer, District Khandwa. Though, he in cross- examination has stated that on the same day, he has not signed any paper but later he has admitted that some papers has been signed by him on the same day and some has been signed by him at police station. The inconsistency in this regard does not seem to render the entire credibility of his evidence doubtful. The testimony of this witness supports the statement of C.P. Dwivedi (PW/8). That apart Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI RONALD VICTOR Signing time: 18-12-2025 16:13:34 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:65512 6 CRA-859-2013 the evidence of C.P. Dwivedi (PW/8) remain unrebutted in the cross- examination and therefore, it cannot be discarded on the ground that he is a police officer. The memorandum under Section 27 of Evidence Act (Ex.P/1) and seizure memo Ex.P/13 has been proved beyond doubt. Though, direct evidence qua the identification of appellant is not found insufficient yet circumstantial evidence on the anvil of memo and seizure of looted article from possession of appellant establishes the case of prosecution against present appellant.
13. From the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, the necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 392 has been established against present appellant satisfactorily and beyond doubt. Thus, the conviction of present appellant under Section 392 of IPC by impugned judgment is hereby affirmed.
14. As far as the impugned sentence is concerned, looking to the act of the present appellant as well as keeping in view the fact that the present appellant is involved in other offences of similar types, the impugned sentence cannot be said to be excessive or inappropriate rather it is found appropriate.
15. Thus, the impugned conviction and sentence stand affirmed.
16. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
17. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with copy of the judgment.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI RONALD VICTOR Signing time: 18-12-2025 16:13:34NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:65512 7 CRA-859-2013 (RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI) JUDGE RS Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI RONALD VICTOR Signing time: 18-12-2025 16:13:34