IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI

th

ON THE 7 OF JANUARY, 2026

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2218 of 2013

SANJAY @ SANJU @ KALU

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Appearance:

Ms. Mamta Dubey - Amicus Curiae for appellant.

Ms. Rashi Dua - Panel Lawyer for State.

JUDGMENT as being of sturdy build, wearing black full-length trousers, a white shirt, and a black helmet at the time of the incident.

This appeal has been filed by the present appellant being aggrieved by

the judgment dated 31.07.2013 passed by the learned Tenth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal (M.P.), in Sessions Trial No. 667 of 2011 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer five years rigorous

imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/-, with default stipulation.

2. As per the prosecution case, On 14 July 2008, complainant, Smt.

Sudha Karamchandani, while proceeding on foot to Sanchi Parlour, situated at Meenakshi Square, Kohefiza, for the purpose of purchasing milk, was subjected to an incident of chain snatching. At about 6:45 a.m., when the complainant reached near Meenakshi Square, an unknown male person, riding a black-colored motorcycle, approached her from behind and forcibly snatched a gold chain with a round locket, weighing approximately 10–12 grams, from her neck and fled from the spot. The said person was described

3. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted in the competent court, which on its turn committed the case to the court of session from where it was made over to Tenth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, District-Bhopal (M.P.) for trial.

4. The learned Trial Judge on the basis of averments made against the appellant in the charge sheet framed charge for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. He took the plea that he has been falsely implicated in the matter. He has chosen not to examine any witness in his defence.

5. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses, which are Altaf (PW-1), Chhotebabu (PW-2), Sudha Karamchandani (PW-3), C.P. Sharma (PW-4), Sandhya Chaturvedi (PW-5), Manoj Singh (PW-6), L.K. Sharma (PW-7), Smt. Yasha Rai (PW- 8), C.P. Dwivedi (PW-9), Ramjilal (PW-10) and Gajraj Singh (PW-11) and placed Ex.P/1 to P/15 and Ex.D/1 and D/2 the documents on record.

6. Learned trial Court, after hearing both the parties, found the prosecution case proved in respect of commission of offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. Learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant for commission of offence as shown herein-above in paragraph 1.

Hence, this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been erroneously convicted by the learned Trial Court. It is contended that the independent witnesses to the seizure have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. It is further argued that the identification of the appellant as well as the looted articles has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the seizure has also not been duly proved. Therefore, the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court are erroneous, unsustainable in law, and liable to be set aside, and the appellant deserves to be acquitted.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the appeal, contending that the prosecution has successfully established its case by reliable and cogent evidence. It is submitted that the sanctity of the identification parade of both the appellant and the looted articles has been duly proved, and hence, no interference is warranted either with the conviction or with the quantum of sentence imposed upon the accused.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. Complainant/victim, Sudha Karamchandani (PW-3), has categorically stated that she knew the accused who committed the offence. She deposed