MP High Court Declines To Reduce Sentence Of Man Convicted For Sand Theft Through Illegal River Mining, Cites Environmental Impact

Justice Achal Kumar Paliwal in his order observed, “On the question of sentence, this Court has examined submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is correct that petitioner is not having criminal antecedents of identical nature and he has served sentence of 4 months out of sentence of 1 year. Offence proved against present petitioner is that he committed theft of sand by mining the same from some river body. Having regard to environmental impact of the offence committed by the petitioner, no lenient view is required to be taken by this Court with respect to sentence. Therefore, no interference is required in the sentence imposed by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court.”

As per the factual matrix of the case, petitioner was found transporting sand in tractor trolley without any licence. The Trial Court as well as Appellate Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner under Section 379 of IPC. The petitioner moved the high court challenging the conviction, seeking acquittal. In the alternative the petitioner sought that he be sentenced with the period already undergone by him.

The counsel for the petitioner referring to the evidence on record, submitted that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court erred in convicting and sentencing petitioner under Section 379 of IPC. It was argued that Prosecution Witness 1 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story. Further, PW-5 supported prosecution story in examination-in-chief, but in cross-examination, denied whole of the prosecution story. Further, referring to the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-4, it was argued that prosecution failed to prove as to from which place, sand found in the possession of petitioner, was mined. It was further contended that no order of Collector restricting mining of sand was filed in the instant case.

The counsel further argued that no person can be punished twice. He contended that it has not been established that sand found in possession of petitioner was illegally mined. It was submitted that the petitioner had already served sentence of more than 4 months out of sentence of 1 year. Submitting that there are no criminal antecedents of petitioner, the counsel prayed before the Court to acquit the petitioner of offence under Section 379 of IPC. It was also prayed that petitioner be sentenced with the period already undergone by him.

On the contrary, the counsel for the State submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant cannot be sentenced with the period already undergone. It was further submitted that trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner.

On perusal of record, the Court noted that Prosecution Witness-1 had indeed turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story. Furthermore, even Prosecution Witness-5 in his cross examination, did not support the prosecution story.

Thereafter, on perusal of cross examination of Prosecution Witness-4, the Court noted that even after being extensively cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner, nothing substantial came out so as to render the testimony of PW-4 unreliable.

The Court further noted that there was nothing on record to show that petitioner had been falsely implicated. “Further, in the instant case petitioner has failed to produce any documents pertaining to the sand being transported by him in the tractor-trolley. Petitioner has failed to establish that sand can be mined from anywhere and without any license, and no license is required for mining of sand.”, the Court said.

Thus, the Court upheld the decision of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court.

With regard to the question of sentence of the petitioner, the Court took into account the environmental impact of the offence committed by the petitioner, thereby, refused to interfere with the sentence imposed.

The Criminal Revision was hence, dismissed.

Case Title: Lakhan Versus State Of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Revision No. 720/2025

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate M.P. Tripathi

Counsel for Respondent: Advocate Anoop Sonkar