Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepak @ Kaliya Kahar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 April, 2011
(1)
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
Cr. A. No. 2570/2010
Deepak @ Kaliya Kahar
Vs.
State of M.P.
As Per : G.S.Solanki, J.
Shri Amit Dubey, Advocate for appellant.
Shri Santosh Yadav, PL for State.
Judgment heard on : 11.4.2011
Judgment delivered on : 13.4.2011
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by judgment dated 12.11.2010 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa Purva Nimad in S.T. No. 179/2010 whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 392 of IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation.
2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that on 28.11.2009 at about 9.55 PM when complainant Rekha Tandle was going on her bicycle, near Railway Quarters, Civil Lines, Harsood road, two miscreants came on the motorcycle and snatched her golden chain with pandel. She lodged report (Ex.P-1) at P.S.Kotwali, Khandwa. After usual investigation, appellant along with his co-accused Sanjay (2) was charge sheeted. Trial Court framed charges under section 392 of IPC against the appellant.
3. Appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication.
4. On appraisal of evidence on record, trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned hereinabove.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that, he does not want to challenge the conviction recorded by the trial Court, however, he has submitted that appellant is 12 years aged boy and he has suffered jail sentence from 25.12.2009 to 10.2.2010, from 4.9.2010 till 12.11.2010 and from 12.11.2010 till date (approximately 8 months), the ends of justice would be met if appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone and fine.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in which appellant looted the golden chain of complainant, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to sentence the appellant for the period already undergone, which is approximately 8 months, but at the same time considering the age of the appellant and facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the ends of justice would be met if appellant is sentenced for a period of 2 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-.
7. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction recorded by the trial Court under section 392 of IPC is (3) affirmed. Sentence recorded by the trial Court is set aside, appellant is sentenced for the period of two years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default he has to undergo S.I. for one month. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with the copy of this judgment for compliance.
(G.S.Solanki) Judge PB