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

th

ON THE 13 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1052 of 2012 KAMLESH AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

None for appellants.

Ms. Seema Jaiswal - Panel Lawyer for State.

JUDGMENT As none is appearing on behalf of appellant, Mr. Himanshu Soni -

Advocate is appointed as amicus curiae to argue on behalf of present appellants.

This appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.05.2012 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur (M.P.) in S.T. No.249 of 2011 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 392 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each with default stipulations.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 24.07.2011, while the complainant was proceeding on his bicycle from Village Unharikheda to Dhana, at about 5:00 PM, near the forest barrier situated on the main road between Sasan and Sarra, the accused persons, namely Kamlesh, Buddha, Pappu and Kishna, all residents of Village Phoolar, intercepted him and demanded a matchbox. Upon the complainant expressing his inability to provide the same, the aforesaid accused persons allegedly assaulted him. It is alleged that accused Kamlesh was armed with an axe and demanded money from the complainant, whereafter the remaining accused persons forcibly removed a sum of ₹6,000/- from his pocket. Accused Pappu is further alleged to have snatched the complainant’s mobile phone. It is further alleged that accused Kisan snatched the complainant’s umbrella, the handle of which bore the name “Jagdish.” Accused Pappu allegedly tied the hands of the complainant with a towel, and all four accused persons kept him restrained until approximately 12:00 midnight, threatening to assault him with the axe in case he disclosed the incident to anyone.

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 sessions from where it was made over to Second Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh for trial.

4. The learned trial Judge on going through the evidence available in the charge sheet framed charge against appellants for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. The accused persons abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. They took the plea that they have been falsely implicated in the matter but they have not chosen to adduce any evidence in their defence.

5. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 05 witnesses, namely, Bhagwati (PW-1), Munna (PW-2), Jagdish Ahirwar (PW-3), Karansing (PW-4), Mubarak Ali (PW-5), and placed Ex.P/1 to P/16 the documents on record.

6. The learned trial Judge after appreciating and marshalling the evidence has convicted the appellants under Section 392 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each. In this manner, the present appeal has been filed by appellant.

7. At the outset it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that he is not pressing the appeal on merits and pressing it only on the point of sentence. As regards sentence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants/accused that Kamlesh was 25 years, Pappu was 20 years, Krishna Kumar was 21 years and Buddhu was 21 years of age, at the time of commission of offence. It is also submitted that the incident is of the year 2011 and since then they are facing the agony of trial. It is further submitted that appellants Krishna and Buddhu remained in custody from 27.07.2011 to 05.08.2011, appellant Pappu remained in custody from 27.07.2011 to 09.08.2011, appellant Kamlesh remained in custody from 27.07.2011 to 11.08.2011 as per certificate under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. prepared by the learned Trial Court. They are the first offenders and