LAKHAN LAL KUSHWAHA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 4.1.2012 passed by learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Chhatarpur in Criminal Appeal No.159/2010 upholding his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 457 and 380 IPC sentencing him to suffer 3 years R.I. and fine of Rs.100/-; in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment of one month passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bada Malahara, Chhatarpur in Criminal Case No.191/2009 vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.7.2010, the applicant has preferred this revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2.) No exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this revision since learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is not pressing this revision on merits but is only pressing upon the question of quantum of sentence.

(3.) Although it has been put forth by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant be released for the period he had already undergone but I would like to see the merits of the case also. The applicants were tried for the offence punishable under Section 457 and 380 IPC on an allegation that they committed theft of ornaments and Rs.3000/- cash on 14.5.2005 from the house of Janakram Asati. Although there is no eyewitness to the incident but the stolen articles were seized at the instance of the applicant from his house through the seizure memos Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2, which is corroborated by independent witnesses Sitaram (PW-1) and Sudhanshu (PW-3). The recovery of the stolen articles has been very well proved. So far as the identification of the stolen articles is concerned, complainant Janakram (PW-2) has stated that the test identification of the stolen articles was conducted in the presence of Sarpanch Ramsingh. Ramshree (PW-4) who is the wife of complainant Janakram has proved her signatures on Ex.P-7 portion B to B. Ramsingh (PW-14) who is the Sarpanch of Gram Bachharwani in his examination-in-chief has admitted that he has conducted the test identification on 25.8.2005. He has proved his signatures on memo Ex.P-7. On bare perusal of the statements of the witnesses of the identification as well as Sarpanch, Ramsingh (PW-14) it is evident that the stolen articles have been rightly identified by the complainant. The applicant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has also not claimed ownership of the stolen articles. Thus, a pure finding of fact has been arrived at by learned two Courts below and on going through the impugned judgment, I find that the learned two Courts below did not commit any error in convicting the applicant under Section 457 and 380 IPC, hence, his conviction under these sections is hereby affirmed.