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

th

ON THE 19 OF JANUARY, 2026 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 273 of 2018 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Versus SANJAY BALAI @ KALU @ SANJY Appearance:

Smt. Vineeta Sharma - Dy. Govt. Advocate for appellant/ State.

Ms. Garima Tiwari - Advocate appears as amicus curiae for respondent.

ORDER This appeal under Section 378 (1) of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the State assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated 11.12.2013 passed in S.T. No.436/2011 by learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal (M.P.) whereby respondent /accused Sanjay Balai @ Kalu @ Sanju has been acquitted of the offence under Section

392 of IPC.

2. The prosecution story, in short, is that on 13/12/2009, complainant Smt. Dipali Jain has lodged report to the effect that she is residing at LIG 92, Harshwardhan Nagar, Bhopal and she is housewife. On 13/12/2009 she went to drop her daughter Awani in Unique Convent School, at that time, a person came on motor cycle of black colour, he wore black jacket and black halmet. He snatched golden chain from her neck and ran away. She made noise, but there was no person.

FIR bearing Crime No.175/2009 (Exhibit P/1) was registered.

3 . After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal who committed the case to the trial Court. Thereafter, charge was framed against the respondent which he denied and claimed for trial.

4 . The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the averments made against the accused in the charge sheet framed charge punishable under Section 392 of IPC. The respondent abjured his guilt, thereafter his statements were recorded. During his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution allegation and pleaded false implication.

5. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges examined as many as 07 witnesses, which are Dipali Jain (PW-1), Manish Shrivastava (PW-2), Shiv Bhawan Tiwari (PW-3), C. P. Sharma (PW-

4), Gajraj (PW-5), R. C. Dangi (P.W.6) and C. P. Dwivedi (P.W.7).

The accused in his defence has not examined any witness.

6. The learned Trial Court having analyzed and marshalled the testimonies of witnesses and examined the documentary evidence available on record found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and eventually acquitted the accused respondent of the charges under Section 392 of IPC. Hence, this appeal.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/State submits that although the identification of the present respondent was not conclusively established, the recovery of the looted gold chain from the possession of the respondent stands duly proved. The prosecution has categorically established this fact through the testimony of C.P. Dwivedi (P.W.-7), as well as the seizure witnesses, namely C.P. Sharma (P.W.-4) and Gajraj (P.W.-5).It is further submitted that the seized chain was duly identified by the complainant, Dipali Jain, in a test identification parade conducted by Manish Shrivastava (P.W.-2), who was posted as Tahsildar at the relevant time. The prosecution has thus successfully proved that the chain recovered from the possession of the respondent was the looted property belonging to the complainant. Learned counsel contends that in view of the aforesaid substantial and cogent evidence available on record, the learned trial Court failed to properly appreciate the prosecution evidence and has erred in acquitting the respondent/accused. The impugned judgment is therefore unsustainable in law. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present appeal be allowed, the impugned judgment of acquittal be set aside, and the respondent/accused be convicted and sentenced appropriately for the offences charged.

8. Per contra, the learned amicus curiae appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the learned Trial Court, after duly marshalling and appreciating the evidence on record, has rightly held th