LAWS(MPH)-2013-4-181

JAGDISH Vs. STATE OF M P

Decided On April 01, 2013
JAGDISH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC and sentenced for two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- for each count vide judgment dated 23.11.2004 passed by the JMFC Narsinghpur (Shri D.R.Ahirwar) in Criminal Case No.861/2004. In Criminal Appeal No.28/2005 the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge Narsinghpur vide judgment dated 15.3.2005 maintained the conviction, but sentence was reduced to one year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- for each count. Being aggrieved with both the judgments, the applicant has filed the present revision.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that in the night of 26/27.10.2001 at about 2:00 AM the complainant Tek Singh (PW-1) was sleeping in his house. He heard some sound of utensils falling from the height, and therefore his wife Phula Bai (PW-8) shouted that there was a thief in the house. On her shouting, Tek Singh and Hiralal, brother of Tek Singh chased the thief and with the help of Beni Singh (PW-4) and Yashwant Singh (PW-3), they held the applicant in a field where he kept 30 kg Soyabean in a bag alongwith 30 kg Urda in another bag. The applicant was brought from the field and handed over to the Kotwar. In the morning the complainant lodged an FIR Ex.P-1 at Police Station Themi District Narsinghpur. The Investigation Officer and Head Constable Rajesh went to the house of the complainant and recovered the applicant. The recovery memo Ex.P-3 was prepared. Thereafter on memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act Ex.P-4 the applicant gave intimation about the stolen crop and the crop was seized vide the seizure memo Ex.P-5. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the trial Court.

(3.) The applicant-accused abjured his guilt. He has stated that he was coming back from Maiher and in the night the complainant etc. caught him near the Belkheda without any reason. However, no defence evidence was adduced.