Imrat Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2012

[Cites 2, Cited by 11]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Imrat Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2012

Bench: Tarun Kumar Kaushal

                                  1
                                                    Cr.A. No.70 of 2009



       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
            BEFORE : TARUN KUMAR KAUSHAL, J.

              CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 70 OF 2009

APPELLANTS: 1.       Imrat Singh,
                     S/o Gokal Dhanak,
                     aged 30 years,
                     R/o Village Sadalatpur, District-Raisen

                2.   Pran Singh,
                     S/o Brijlal Bairagi,
                     aged 23 years,
                     R/o Village Sandora, District- Raisen (M.P.)

                3.   Bheekam,
                     S/o Hiralal Dhanak,
                     aged 30 years,
                     R/o Village Sandora, District-Raisen (M.P.)

                         Versus
RESPONDENT:          State of Madhya Pradesh
                     through Police Station, Raisen,
                     District Raisen (M.P.)

******************************************************************
For appellants        :    Shri Ashok Chakraverti, Advocate.
For Respondent        :    Shri Vinod Fouzdar, Panel Lawyer
******************************************************************

                        JUDGMENT

08/05/2012 This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 29/12/2008 passed by Special Judge (Electricity) Raisen in Special Case No. 198/2007 convicting the appellants under section 379 IPC read with section 136 of Electricity Act 2003 and sentenced to 6 months R.I and with fine of Rs.1000/-.

2. Facts of the case in short are that on 25/07/2007 on receiving information regarding theft of transformer from Village- Bodpura, Makanlal, Lineman (PW-2) informed the incident to Sharad Chandra Banchode, Assistant Engineer (PW-

2 Cr.A. No.70 of 2009

3), who submitted a written report at Police Station- Raisen. On the basis of which FIR Ex.P-12 was registered at Crime No. 315/2007 under section 379 IPC read with section 136 of Electricity Act 2003 against unknown accused persons. During investigation, police prepared Spot Map Ex.P-11.

3. On 30/07/2007, appellants were arrested, they furnished information regarding stolen parts of transformer and copper wire of transformer has been received from the custody of the appellants. Police Station Raisen submitted a charge sheet against the appellants. Trial Court framed charges under section 379 IPC read with Section 136, Electricity Act against the appellants. Appellants abjured guilt. To substantiate case of the prosecution, statements of Habib Mohd. (PW-1), Makanlal Pawar, Lineman (PW-2), Sharad Chandra Banchode, Assistant Engineer (PW-3), and T.P. Tripathi, ASI (PW-4) were recorded. Defence of the appellants in trial court was that of false implication.

4. After appreciating aforesaid evidence, Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as above.

5. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants on the grounds that appreciation of evidence is not proper. Evidence of prosecution witnesses are suffering from material contradictions and omissions. Evidence of recovery is not reliable and unconvincing. Conviction is based on insufficient and doubtful evidence. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer supported the findings of conviction and sentence both.

6. Makanlal, Lineman (PW-2) stated that some village people informed regarding theft of transformer from the field. He informed the incident to Sharad Chandra Banchode, Assistant Engineer (PW-3). PW-3 submitted a written report Ex.P-3 at Police Station- Raisen and police prepared spot map Ex.P-11. Makanlal (PW-2) stated that on 30/07/2007 appellants were arrested. They furnished information regarding recovery of wire 3 Cr.A. No.70 of 2009 of transformer and on the basis of seizure memo Ex.P-7, Ex.P-8 and Ex.P-9, copper wire and parts of transformer were recovered from the possession of the appellants. In cross- examination of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses, nothing has come on record to render their evidence untrustworthy. Rather they are reliable witnesses, fact of theft of copper wire etc from the transformer has been proved beyond doubt by the prosecution witnesses. I see no error in finding of conviction of the appellants under section 379 IPC read with section 136 of Electricity Act 2003.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that during investigation appellants have already suffered custody period of about 8 days in this matter. No other such incident has been reported against them during pendency of the appeal. No useful purpose would be served in sending the appellants back to jail. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer submitted that copper wire amounts to Rs.20,000/- was recovered from the possession of the appellants.

8. As discussed above, for offence under section 379 IPC read with section 136 of Electricity Act 2003 undergone jail sentence of 8 days seems to be just, proper and sufficient, if fine amount is enhanced. For offence under section 379 IPC read with section 136 of Electricity Act 2003, 8 days undergone jail sentence and fine of Rs.3000/- seems to be just and proper and will meet the ends of justice. In default of payment of fine the appellants shall undergo 2 months simple imprisonment.

9. Appellants are directed to remain present before the trial court on or before 17th July, 2012 to deposit 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 tarun/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court