r <^. t. 04- Y/^-Q- / -J!^—^^^«^^.^^^» %an IN THE HIGH COURT OF. f';J^DHYAPRADESH AT JABALPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL ^ ^ £ Of 1995 APPSLLANTS ACCUSED IN JAIL 1. /O'itendra Singh alias Jitu alias ^ . !. ' ^ Pradep Singh^ aged about 24 years^' son Manaklal Slngl'ii by occupation Driver^ resident of village Gaxidai dtstt* Rajnandgaouo ^ 2o Bharat Prasad Sharma^ aged 24 years^ son of Shanker Prasad Sharina^ by ^ . occupation Pan Thela^ resident of~ ChandichouK^ Mathpara^ Durg^ versus RESPONDEI<?T. State of Madhya Pradesh through the District Magistrate^Durg< / Convlctlon iinder sectioiis 392/397 I.P.C'* "" Sentence: 7 years* R.I. / APPEAL QNDER SSCTION 374 OP THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCBDUREo" ^s^t-^ :^-^ 'v L HI6H COURT OF CHHATrXS©ARH_ArMLASPUR Singt®Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justlce Prttinker biwaker Crjtninal ApDeal No. 996 of 1995 APPBJ.ANTS RESPONDBsrr Jitendra Singh ©Jltu A Pradeep Singh and another. Verws State of AAadhya Pradesh Mrs. Savita Tiwari, counsei for the oppelJants. Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer for the State/ CRIAAINAL APPEAL UNDGR SECUON 374 OF THE C006 OF CRIAAINAL PROCE&U8E ORDER (07.07.2010) Present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 11.7.1995 passed by 6 Additiona! Sessions Judge Durg in Sessions Trial No. 426/1993 convicting the flccused/flppellants for the offences punishable under Section 392 read with Sectlon 397 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 2, Case of the pro^cutson sn brief is that on 8.1.1993 FXR- (Ex.P-4) was lodged by comptainant Ompraka^i (PW-8) alleging that on 7.1.1993 at about 11 pm when he was 90^9 from his village to another vilbge on his bullock cart along with his servant <&hanaram 0>W-9), accused/appellomts came there on their scooter cmd looted fts. 110/- from him cnd his servant. After investigation, challan was filed by the police on 10.2.1993 and charges were fr'amed by the court on 27.1.1994. 3. So as to hold 1+ie accused/appellants 9uilty, pros&cution has examined as many as 12 witnesses in support- of its case. Statements of 1+ie accused/oppellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled agamst 1+»em and pteaded their innocence and false implication in the case, r^-.^ v 4. Heard counsel for the parties and peru^id the material avaikxble on record including the judgment impugned. 5. Counsel for the appellants submits that appeltant No- I has already undergone the entire sentence; therefore, she is not pressin9 this apj^sal on his behatf. In respect of oppellant No. 2 it has been submitted that she is not pressin9 this appeal as far as jt relates to conviction parl- of the impuyied judgment and would confine her argument to the ^sntence part thereof only, Accordin9 to her, only Rs.110/- were looted by the accused persons, that the appellcint No. 2 has already remained in jail for Qbout 29 months, 1+iat 1+ie incident is soid to haye ta(<en place about 17 years back, no u^sful purpo^ woutd be served in se^dmg him to jail ond it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on them is reduced to the period already under9one by him- To this, counselfor the State has serious objection. 6. In view of above, appeal in respect of appellant No. 1 Jitendra Sing^ ls diswissed as not pressed. Howeyer, in respect of appelbnt No. 2- Bharat Prasad Sharma, the same is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintoined. Appellant No. 2 is reporl-ed to have remained in jail for a period of 29 months, incident is said to have taken place about 17 years back, and therefore his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. Appeal thus partly albwed. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ^r