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

th

ON THE 10 OF DECEMBER, 2025 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1900 of 2012 SANJAY @ SANJU Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Dr. Ms. Vijay Bhatnagar - Advocate for appellant.

Mrs. Ekta Gupta - Panel Lawyer for State.

ORDER This appeal has been filed by the present appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.07.2012 passed by the learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal (M.P.), in Sessions Trial No. 409 of 2011 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-, with default stipulation.

2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 20.10.2010 at about 03:15 PM, complainant Manju Gupta along with her son Yash and daughter Archie was proceeding to the residence of her father-in-law, Shri Ram Avtar Gupta situated at 2-B, Saket Nagar. As soon as she reached the rear gate of Saket Nagar, her vehicle shutdown, whereupon an unknown person arrived on a red Pulsar motorcycle without a number plate, snatched the gold chain from her neck and fled away. The incident was reported at Police Station Bagsewania, where Crime No. 511/2010 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC and investigation triggered. On the same day, the Station House Officer, Shri Gopal Singh Thakur, visited the spot along with the complainant and prepared the spot map (Ex. P-2). Subsequently, on 03.06.2011 acting on an informant’s tip, the Station House Officer, C.P. Dwivedi, conducted a raid at the Jhuggi of co-accused Kamal Balai in Durga Nagar and apprehended the accused/appellant, Kamal Balai and Ashish Gadse. During interrogation in the presence of witnesses, the accused/appellant disclosed information regarding stolen articles connected with 54 different robbery cases pursuant to which a memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex. P-5) was recorded. With respect to the present case, the accused/appellant Sanjay @ Sanju furnished information regarding the concealment of the stolen gold chain beneath bricks in the hut (Jhuggi) of Kamal Balai at Durga Nagar, Block-3. Acting on this disclosure, a gold chain weighing approximately 15.90 grams was recovered along with other articles and a seizure memo (Ex. P-6) was prepared. The accused/appellant was thereafter arrested and the arrest memo (Ex.P-7) was drawn. Kamal Balai, who had provided shelter to the accused was also arrested.

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 appellant which he denied and claimed for trial.

4. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined 06 witnesses namely Manju Gupta (PW-1), Yash Gupta (PW-2), Kailash Salaija (PW-3), Varun Awasthi (PW-4), Bharat Singh (PW-5) and C.P. Dwivedi (PW-6) and exhibited 17 documents (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-17). The appellant examine Sevanti Bharkale (DW-1) in his defence and exhibited 02 documents (Ex.D-1 and D- 2). Upon conclusion of the trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as indicated hereinabove.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that, as per the statement of defence witness Sevanti Bharkale (DW-1), Kamal Balai did not reside at Durga Nagar, Block-3, but was residing in Ward No. 52, Indira Nagar. Hence, the alleged seizure from the slum hut (jhuggi) of Kamal Balai, as claimed by the prosecution, becomes doubtful. It is further submitted that the identification of the present appellant as well as of the gold chain is also doubtful. The witnesses examined by the prosecution are allegedly pocket witnesses of the police and their testimony is not believable keeping in view the facts reveals from their cross-examination. It is further contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge a