The court's decision emphasized the importance of the evidence, the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, and the proportionality of the sentence in cases of theft under Section 379 of IPC.

ORDER

Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar, J. - This criminal revision is filed assailing the judgment dated 05.03.2014 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Criminal Appeal No.233/2013 whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.07.2013 passed by Shri R.L. Karoriya, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guna in RCT No.1660/2012 convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and sentencing him with simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation was affirmed.

2. The exposition of fact, giving rise to this revision petition is as under:-

(i) Jayprakash Agrawal resident of Madhavganj, Gwalior submitted a written complaint with SHO GRP, District Guna inter alia alleging that he was travelling from Bara, Rajasthan to Guna by train. As the train reached Railway Station, Ruthiyai, some unknown person stolen his bag containing cash of Rs.29,000/-, visiting card of Triupati Traders and 15 pieces of apparel. On duty GRP and RPF staff caught hold one person with the bag. He identified his bag. Accused Pappu Lodhi was arrested. Police Station GRP, Guna registered FIR at Crime No.56/2012 for offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC against Pappu Lodhi. The stolen articles (blue colour bag along with cash of Rs.29,000/- and 15 pieces of apparel) were seized from the possession of the Pappu Lodhi. He was arrested. Statement of witnesses were recorded. On completion of investigation, final report was submitted before the Court of learned CJM, Guna.

(ii) Learned CJM, Guna on completion of trial and hearing of the accused, convicted the accused Pappu Lodhi for offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and sentenced him as under:-

3. Feeling aggrieved by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.07.2023, the petitioner Pappu preferred appeal before the Sessions Judge, Guna. Learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Guna vide judgment dated 05.03.2014 passed in CRA No.233/2013 rejected the appeal while confirming the conviction and sentence.

4. The impugned judgment dated 05.03.2014 is assailed in present revision petition on following grounds:-

(1) That the impugned order is unjust, arbitrary and bad in law.

(2) Jaiprakash Agarwal (PW-1) was not carrying railway travel ticket. He has not presented bills for jeans pant.

(3) All the witness examined by the prosecution were interested witness. Learned Magistrate did not consider these aspects of the matter.

(4) Learned Magistrate committed an error in not extending benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. Learned Appellate Court also failed to consider the same.

(5) There are many omissions and contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witness. The prosecution case was doubtful.

5. On such grounds, it is requested that the impugned judgment dated 05.03.2014 passed by First Appellate Court be set aside and the petitioner be acquitted of all the charges.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the testimony of Jaiprakash Agarwal (PW-1), Laxmikant Chourasia (PW-2), Prabhudayal (PW-3), Ramesh Kumar Panthi (PW-4), Vivek Kaushal (PW-5), Sheikh Safik (PW-6), Surendra Kumar (PW-7) and Investigation Officer Om Prakash (PW-8) submits that there are inconsistencies in statement of witnesses with regard to seizure of bag alleged to be stolen from possession of the accused, therefore, the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC was not proved beyond doubt.

7. Per-contra, learned counsel for the State submits that there is no material contradictions or inconsistencies in the statement of prosecution witness. Learned trial Court and First Appellate Court had elaborate appreciation of the evidence concluded that alleged offence is proved beyond doubt. Therefore, the concurrent finding cannot be interfered with in absence of patent illegality.

8. Under S