Ramkrishna vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1102 MP

                          1
              HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                              CRR-912-2021
               (RAMKRISHNA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )


Gwalior, Dated : 26.03.2021

      Heard through video conferencing.

      Shri Rishikesh Bohre, learned counsel for the appellant.

      Shri N.K. Gupta, learned P.P. for the respondent/State.

With the consent of the parties, heard finally.

The present revision petition under Section 397 and 401 of

Cr.P.C has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction dated

28.04.2010 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar

in Criminal Appeal No. 20/2009, whereby, the appeal filed by the

petitioner/appellant has been partly allowed and modifying the

sentenced passed by the learned trial Court, he has only been convicted

along with another co-accused under Section 323/34 of IPC for R.I. of

one month with fine of Rs.500/-.

It is argued that with respect to incident is said to have taken

place on 26.07.1998, in which complainant-Harisingh lodged an FIR

against the revisionist along with another co-accused persons with

respect to marpeet being committed by the accused persons with him.

It is submitted that they have obstructed him while he was coming

from discharging his duties. On the basis of which, the aforesaid

complaint was got registered at Crime No. 258/1998 at Police Station

Ashoknagar for the offences under Sections 353, 332/34 of IPC and

after completion of preliminary enquiry, charge sheet has been

submitted before the competent Court. The learned trial Court after

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR-912-2021 (RAMKRISHNA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )

conclusion of the trial, the trial Court has convicted the revisionist vide

judgment dated 28.11.2008 for the sentenced under Sections 332/34 of

IPC for three months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-. On

appeal being preferred which was registered as Cr.A. No. 20/2009

wherein, the learned Appellate Court has modified the sentenced and

the accused/appellants have been acquitted under Section 332/34 of

IPC, but has convicted under Section 323/34 of IPC for one month

rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-. It is submitted that fine

amount has already been deposited. It is submitted that the revisionist

has remained absconded for a considerable period owing to the fact

that he is a labour and has gone outside in another State for livelihood

of his family, therefore, he could not surrender within time. The

revision has been preferred by the another co-accused has already been

disposed of by this Court in Cr.R. No. 367/2010 vide order dated 4 th of

May 2010 and the sentence has already been reduced to that of

undergone and the fine amount has been increased. He submits that the

revisionist is in custody since 17.03.2021 and has almost 50% sentence

has been served upon by him, therefore, he prays for similar relief as

has been granted by this Court to the other co-accused persons.

He has also filed an application under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act for condoning the delay pointing out the reasons

therein. He submits that other co-accused has already been granted the

benefit of undergone, he may also be given the same treatment

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR-912-2021 (RAMKRISHNA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )

enhancing the fine amount. He has not challenging the order passed by

the learned Appellate Court on merits. It is further submitted that

during the intervening period of absconsion, the revisionist has not

committed any other offence. The aforesaid aspect can be verified.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the revision

and has argued that the revisionist has remained absconded for a

considerable period for almost ten years without any possible

explanation. The other co-accused have filed the revision within time

and they were extended the benefit of undergone, but the present

revisionist has kept the matter pending for almost ten years and it is

only the perpetual warrants of arrest have been issued against him, then

he was got arrested. In such circumstances, the prayer for undergone

should be rejected. As far as criminal antecedents are concerned, he is

not in a position to comment upon the criminal activities of the present

revisionist as he is not in possession of case diary. He prays for some

berating time to call for the criminal antecedent of the revisionist.

At this stage, counsel for the revisionist submits that the

aforesaid aspect can be verified by the State counsel or the revision

may be allowed subject to verification of the aforesaid aspect that the

revisionist has not committed any offence in any manner during his

absconsion period.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

From perusal of the record it is seen that in pursuance to the

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR-912-2021 (RAMKRISHNA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )

judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court convicting the

revisionist under Section 332/34 of IPC for imprisonment of 3 months

R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- and on appeal being preferred, the Appellate

Court has acquitted the appellants from under Section 334/34 of IPC

and they were sentenced under Section 323/34 of IPC for one month RI

with fine of Rs. 500/-. On revision has been preferred by another co-

accused persons being Cr.R No.367/2010, the sentenced was already

reduced to that of undergone as they have remained in custody for

period of six days and fine amount has been enhanced for Rs. 500/- to

Rs.1000/-. In the present case, the revisionist has also prayed for the

similar relief pointing out the fact that he is in custody since

17.03.2021 and is ready to deposit the enhance amount of fine. The

explanation which have been given for his absconsion period of ten

years that he is a labour and has gone out for livelihood in some other

State, therefore, he could not surrender within time. Accordingly, the

application for Limitation Act filed by the revisionist being I.A. No.

9147/2021 is hereby allowed. Thus, accordingly, the present criminal

revision is partly allowed as the sentence awarded by appellate Court is

hereby affirmed. So far as the period of sentence is concerned, this

Court is of the considered opinion that looking to the nature of injuries

and circumstances of the case and the fact that the revisionist has

already served approximately 14 days jail sentence, the sentence

awarded by the appellate Court is reduced to the sentence already

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR-912-2021 (RAMKRISHNA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )

undergone by him subject to verification of the fact that revisionist

has not committed any offence during his absconsion period.

However, as he has not committed any other offence during his

absconsion period and looking to the fact that he is in custody since

17.03.2021, this Court deems it appropriate to enhance the fine amount

from Rs.500/- to Rs.2,000/- and he is also directed to be compensate

the complainant by way of compensation for his absconsion period,

therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to

grant compensation to the injured/complainant. Thus, it is directed that

an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) be paid to the

injured/complainant as compensation. The aforesaid compensation and

fine amount be paid within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt

of the certified copy of this order. In failure, the revisionist is directed

to undergo the remaining part of the jail sentence.

Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of with the

aforesaid observation.

                                                    (Vishal Mishra)
LJ*/-                                                   Judge
    LOKENDRA
    JAIN
    2021.03.31
    16:13:28
    -07'00'