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. 2027 of 2013 SANJAY BALAI @ KALU @ SANJU

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Appearance:

Ms. Mamta Dubey - Amicus Curiae for appellant.

Ms. Rashi Dua - Panel Lawyer for State.

JUDGMENT court of session from where it was made over to Sessions Judge, Bhopal (M.P.) for trial.

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

the judgment dated 05.01.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge No.2, Bhopal (M.P.), in Sessions Trial No. 678 of 2011 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer four years

rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.20,000/-, with default stipulation.

2. As per the prosecution case, on 02.08.2010, the complainant, Neeta

Gupta, approached the police station and lodged a complaint stating that while she was purchasing vegetables from a street vendor in front of her house, an unknown motorcyclist came from behind and forcibly snatched her

gold chain from her neck and fled from the spot.

3. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was

submitted in the competent court, which on its turn committed the case to the

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 06 witnesses, which are Sandhya Chaturvedi (PW-1), Neeta Gupta (PW-2), Gajraj (PW-3), C.P. Sharma (PW-4), S.K. Ojha (PW-5) and C.P. Dwivedi (PW-6) and placed Ex.P/1 to P/12 and 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, Neeta Gupta (PW-2), has categorically deposed that on the date of the incident, while she was purchasing vegetables, a person riding a motorcycle suddenly approached her, snatched the gold chain from her neck, and fled towards the Tata Showroom. She stated that the assailant was wearing a black pant and a blue shirt. Although she could not note the registration number of the motorcycle, she promptly lodged a report at Police Station Kohefiza, which was registered as Exhibit-

P/3. The police thereafter prepared the spot map (Exhibit-P/4).

11. Neeta Gupta (PW-2) further deposed that she was subsequently called to t