RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Sakle, learned Counsel for the applicants apart from his submissions on the merit of the case also pleads that the incident dates back to lst/2nd of February, 1982 and all the accused/applicants have remained in jail for about one month and twenty eight days. Mr. Sakle further submits that presently the accused/applicant Nos. 1 and 3 may be around 72 years of age and others namely, applicant No. 2 Chammar @ Chamroo around 57 years and applicant No, 4, Chudamani may be 62 years of age. Shri Sakle also submits that there are infirmities in the statements of Ramesh (P. W. 1) and Leelabai (P. W. 3), who are the witnesses to the incident, S. H. Sisthe (P. W. 9), Head Master, who conducted the identification parade,is also not firm in his statement. Mr. Sakle also submits that from Deepchand, a gold smith, certain articles which had been pledged with him, were seized but he was not made an accused. According to Mr. Sakle, the identification was delayed and even Binulal (P. W. 8), servant of Deepchand and Premlal (P. W. 10), with whom the applicant had also pledged certain other articles, have denied their 161, Cr. PC statements but they were not declared hostile. Under the circumstances, Mr. Sakle submits that this Court may take a lenient view on the question of sentence. Shri Sanjeev Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer for the State submits that it is a case of concurrent findings of facts and the Courts below have been considerate in awarding sentences under Sections 457/380, IPC.

(2.) ON due consideration of rival submissions as also the totality of circumstances; that the incident took place almost 20 years back and the applicants have suffered a lot in facing criminal prosecution till date; that the seizures as also the identification may not be said to be full proof evidence in view of infirmities discussed hereinabove; and that certain important witnesses like Binulal (P. W. 8) and Premlal (P. W. 10), who resiled from their police statements, were not declared hostile, I find that the submissions of Shri Sakle on the question of sentences merit consideration. Accordingly, the conviction of the accused-applicants recorded by the Trial Court under Sections 457 and 380, IPC is hereby affirmed. However, in view of the foregoing, the jail sentence of one year R. I. under Sections 457 and 380, IPC is reduced to the period already undergone, but as from all the accused/applicants, some articles have been recovered, each of the accused is imposed a fine of Rs. two thousand which they shall pay within a period of two months from receipt of a copy of the order of this Court. In case of default in the payment of fine, each of the accused shall further undergo a jail sentence of three months R. I.

(3.) THUS, the criminal revision is dismissed with aforesaid modification on the question of sentence. As the accused/applicants are on bail in terms of the order dated 14-3-91, their bail bonds shall stand discharged.