IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA th ON THE 6 OF FEBRUARY, 2025 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 191 of 2024 SURAJ DUMAR AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Ms. Savita Chaudhary - Advocate for appellants.

Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh - Panel Lawyer for State.

JUDGMENT With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally at motion hearing stage.

This appeal has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved with th the judgment dated 18.12.2023 passed by 27 Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T. No.468 of 2018 by which the appellants have been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 392 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 05 years with fine amount of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulations of six months additional R.I.

to each of the appellant.

2. In nutshell, the prosecution case before the trial Court was that the complainant Mrs. Kalawati Yadav (PW-3) on 27.06.2018 at about 16:45 hours, was lying in courtyard of her house on plank, two boys riding on the motorcycle came in front of her house and one boy sitting as a pillion rider, came in her courtyard and snatched her mangalsutra made up of eight gold Signature Not Verified beads, she cried, her grand-daughter Anita @ Annu (PW-4) saw those boys and the F.I.R. was lodged stating that one of the offender was wearing a yellow colour having black colour check gamcha on his face and wore blue colour jeans and white colour half shirt and the boy who was driving the motorcycle, was having blue colour jeans and red shirt. On the information, F.I.R was registered at the Police Station - Civil Lines, Jabalpur as a Crime No.157 of 2018. Spot map was prepared and one gold bead was recovered from the spot. The appellants were arrested on the same day. Appellant No.1 Suraj Dumar had swallowed the mangalsutra and he was admitted in the hospital where after medical intervention, the mangalsutra was taken out from his body and recovered. Test Identification Parade was conducted by the Tahsildar in his Court room. Identification of the recovered mangalsutra was conducted by the Tahsildar. Motorcycle was recovered from appellant No.2 Ramesh Thapa that was of a stolen motorcycle of Nishant Singh Maravi (PW-11). From the possession of the appellants, the clothes that they wore at the time of incident, were recovered. After investigation, charge- sheet was submitted for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The trial Court framed the charges under Section 392 in alternative Section 392/34 of the Indian Penal Code and appellants abjured their guilt and prayed for trial.

4. The trial Court examined the prosecution witnesses and examined the appellants under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Appellants had taken the defence that they are innocent and they have falsely Signature Not Verified been implicated in this case but they did not examine any defence witness. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court has passed the impugned judgment, hence this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code as no injury was caused to any person or any type of threat was given or apprehension was created in the mind of the victim that she will be injured or murdered or shall be wrongfully restraint. Thus, the trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellants.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the identification parade was not as per the law and prosecution did not examine the Tahsildar who conducted the identification parade and also submitted that appellant No.2 Raju Thapa was the neighbour of the complainant and they were already known to this appellant but at the time of incident, they did not recognize this person and report was lodged against unknown persons. Learned counsel for