IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH

th

ON THE 10 OF DECEMBER, 2025 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1144 of 2019 BHAIYAN KUMHAR Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Madan Singh - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Vijay Pandey - Dy. Government Advocate for the State of M.P.

ORDER This revision was admitted for final hearing on 15.3.2025.

Records are received.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the revision is heard finally.

The applicant is has filed this revision being aggrieved of the judgment dated 6.2.2019 passed in Cr.A. No.100113 of 2016 by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Link Court, Jatara, District Tikamgarh dismissed the appeal and affirming the judgment dated 26.8.2016 passed in Criminal Case no. 730 of 2013 whereby the applicant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo 2-2 years R.I. and fine of Rs.500-500 with default stipulation of 3-3 months S.I. under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has remained in jail for about six months.

3. On perusal of the record, it is seen that during trail the applicant remained in judicial custody from 1.8.2013 to 19.9.2013 as mentioned in Para-22 of the judgment of the trial court.

4. The applicant was charged for the offence of trespassing a house and stealing of Rs.30500/- and an identity card. The entire amount has been recovered from the applicant - accused as per seizure memo (Ex.P-1). The theft took place in the night of 30-31/07/2013 in village Chandera and seizure was made on 1.8.2013 at 9 AM from the house of the accused.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits he is not challenging the factum of conviction. He is only making prayer that the sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. Learned counsel for the State has no objection if the prayer as advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is allowed.

7. Perused the judgment of the trial court as well as of the appellate court. I have also perused the statements of PW-1- Smt. Kushum, PW-2- Shankar Prasad, PW-3- Brajesh Sahu, PW-4- Ashok, PW-5-Shyambai, PW- 6- D.S. Parmar, PW-7-Rani. In the statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. it is seen that conviction under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC is well justified.

Accordingly, appeal against conviction is dismissed.

8. Considered the quantum of punishment. In the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the entire prosecution story and fact that the entire amount has been recovered, then jail sentence from 1.8.2013 to 19.9.2013 i.e. 51 days as mentioned in Para-22 of the judgment of the trial court is proper punishment. Accordingly, the jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the applicant while maintaining the fine amount.

9. Disposal of the case property shall be as per judgment of the trial court.

10. The applicant be set at liberty if his presence is not required in any other case.

11. Record of the trial court be sent back.

(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)

JUDGE bks