RAMESH KUMAR HEERALAL Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant/accused has preferred this revision under section 397 read with 401 of the Cr.P.C being aggrieved by Order dated 28.3.2000 passed by the II Add. Sessions Judge, Raisen in Cr.A.No.905/96 whereby upholding his conviction under section 379 of the IPC awarded by the trial court he has been directed to undergo for RI 1 ? years with fine of Rs.200/-, in default of depositing such fine amount for further 15 days .

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision in short are that on 11.8.84, the complainant Bhura Singh lodged the FIR (Ex.P/6) at Police Station Dehgaon district Raisen contending that during the intervening night of 8/9.8.84 some unknown person has stolen his buffalow from village Dabur. After registration of the offence, the matter was investigated. In pendency of such investigation, the applicant was arrested in connection of section 102 of the Cr.P.C by Police Station Dehat Vidisha and one buffalow was also seized from him. On receiving such information by aforesaid Police Station from P.S. Dehat Vidisha, the identification parade of said buffalow was carried-out in which, the aforesaid complainant identified the same as his buffalow. On completion of the 2 investigation the applicant was charge sheeted for his prosecution under section 379 of the IPC. On framing the charge of such offence, the applicant abjured the guilt, on which, the trial was held. On appreciation of the evidence, after holding guilty to the applicant for the aforesaid offence, he was sentenced for RI 2 years with fine of Rs.200/-.

(3.) SMT Pratibha Mishra, counsel of the applicant after taking me through the record of the trial court including the evidence led by the parties as well as the exhibited papers of the charge sheet argued that on proper appreciation of the evidence, the impugned conviction of the applicant is not sustainable. In 3 continuation she said that in case the impugned conviction is affirmed by this court then in that circumstance considering the fact that the applicant did not possess any criminal antecedents and he being first offender, is entitled to be given the benefit of Probation of the Offenders Act and prayed to extend such benefit to the applicant by allowing this revision.