1 Cr.R. No.347-2022
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, INDORE BENCH
Criminal Revision No. 347 -2022
(Rikesh and Pandiya vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another)
Indore, Dated: 02.03.2022
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Records of the courts below are available.
With the consent of the counsel for the parties, this criminal
revision is heard and disposed of finally.
ORDER
1. This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment dated 14.1.2022, passed by the learned Sessions Judge Barwani, District-Barwani (M.P.) thereby the learned Judge has affirmed the judgment dated 13.3.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Barwani, District- Barwani in RCT No.374/2018 whereby the petitioners were found guilty for offence punishable under Section 325/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, three months additional rigorous imprisonment.
2. Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has submitted that 2 Cr.R. No.347-2022 the petitioners have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 325/34 of the IPC and a short sentence of one rigorous imprisonment has been awarded to them and as they have already undergone more than one and a half months of incarceration out of one year, the petition may be disposed of and the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by them by increasing the fine amount as the incident has taken place on the spur of the moment. It is further submitted that if the revision petition is admitted, it would be probably come for final hearing after a decade and would be argued on the same lines.
3. Counsel for the State, on the other hand has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that the injuries each have been inflicted by both the petitioners on the head of the injured Ramesh and thus, no error has been committed by the courts below in convicting the petitioners and as such no interference is called for.
4. Heard the counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
5. From the record, it is found that so far as the incident is concerned, it took place on 6.8.2018 at around 18.35 hours and within twenty minutes time, the FIR has been lodged under Sections 294, 323/34 & 506 (II) of the IPC. However, the charge sheet has been filed under Sections 294, 325/34 506(Part-2) of the IPC under which the petitioners have been convicted. 3 Cr.R. No.347-2022
6. So far as the injuries suffered by the complainant Ramesh s/o Puniya are concerned, the injured has been examined by Dr. Pratap Singh Patel (P.W.7), who found the following injuries :-
1. Lacerated wound measuring 2 inch x 1/2 inch fractured bone on the tempo parietal region and near occipital region.
2. Lacerated wound on the head measuring 1 inch x 1/2 inch by bone on the parietal region.
3. Abrasion on the left shoulder region.
7. Dr. Patel has also opined that the injured has no fracture on the bone and in his cross-examination he has admitted that such injury can also be caused by falling from motorcycle.
8. Dr. Kailashchandra Mandloi (P.W.8) has been examined by the prosecution and proved the C.T. Scan report of the complainant Ramesh wherein it was found he had 5.8 inch x 1.8 cm blood clot (extradural hematoma) on the upper side of his head and who had also suffered right parietal bone fracture. The injured/complainant was discharged from the hospital on 14.8.2018. Thus, the complainant has been hospitalized for a period of around seven days.
9. So far as the genesis of the incident is concerned, according to the complainant Ramesh, he knows the petitioners Rikesh and Pandiya. Rikesh happens to be the husband of Kochiya Bai and 4 Cr.R. No.347-2022 Pandiya is Rikesh's father.
10. It is alleged that on the date of the incident, when the complainant was taking one Seema Bai to drop her to her uncle's home while returning he also met Kochiyabai and told her that as his aunt had passed away, why did she not come, which led to the dispute between the parties and Rikesh threw stone on him hitting him on the head and thereafter another stone was also thrown by the father-in-law of Kochiyabai the Petitioner-Pandiya which also hit him on the head and thereafter he fell unconscious and was taken to the hospital. Thus, it is apparent that the dispute has taken place on the spur of the moment on a trivial issue leading to pelting of stone by the present petitioners on the complainant. In such circumstances, considering the fact that the injured was required to be hospitalized for around seven days due to head injury and the petitioners have already undergone more than one and a half months of the incarceration, in the considered opinion of this Court, the interest of justice would be served, if the petitioners' jail sentence is reduced from one year incarceration to four months' incarceration. However, the fine amount is further enhanced to Rs.15,000/-each from Rs.5,000/- each, meaning thereby, the petitioners would be required to pay an additional amount of Rs. 10,000/-each as fine amount which shall be 5 Cr.R. No.347-2022 deposited before the concerned trial Court. On payment of the aforesaid fine and on completion of four months' of incarceration, the petitioners be released from jail. The fine amount so received from the petitioners may also be paid to the complainant by the learned Judge of the trial court as compensation. On failure to deposit the amount, the petitioners shall undergo the remaining sentence as directed by the Courts below.
11. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part to the extent herein above indicated. The petitioners are in jail; they shall serve their sentence as aforesaid and shall be released accordingly.
12. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for compliance.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(Subodh Abhayankar ) JUDGE moni Digitally signed by MONI RAJU Date: 2022.03.04 17:16:07 +05'30'