Ramkaran vs State Of M.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 16024 MP

 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 741 of 2007                                                         1

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                    AT GWALIOR
                                      BEFORE
                           HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
                           JUDGEMENT DATED 5th DECEMBER, 2022

                             CRIMINAL REVISION No. 741 of 2007

      Between:-
      1. RAMKARAN S/O SHRI RAMNATH BRAMHAN , AGED ABOUT
      65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: R/O VILLAGE KHAI KHEDA,
      POLICE THANA NATERAN, DISTT. VIDISHA (MADHYA
      PRADESH)
      2. RAMCHARAN S/O SHRI RAMNATH, AGED ABOUT 45
      YEARS, OCCUPATION: R/O GRAM KHAI KHEDA, P. S.
      NATERAN, DISTT. VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
      3. SOMA S/O POORAN CHAMAR , AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
      OCCUPATION: R/O GRAM KHAI KHEDA, P.S.NATERAN, DISTT.
      VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                      .....PETITIONERS
      (BY MR. D.S. TOMAR, ADVOCATE )

      AND

      STATE OF M.P. THROUGH POLICE STATION GANJBASODA,
      DISTT. VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                     ..... RESPONDENT
      (BY MR. RAMADHAR CHOWBEY - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)




          This revision coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:-

                                        JUDGMENT

1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioners under section 397

r/w section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment dated

17/08/2007 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge (fast tract), Basoda, District

VidishaNotinVerified Signature Cr.A. No. 266/2006, whereby, the criminal appeal filed by the petitioners Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR has been partly allowed and modified to the extent that the petitioners were convicted Signing time: 07-12-2022 05:11:50 PM

for the offence punishable under Section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced each of them

to undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court with fine of Rs. 3,000/- each with

default stipulation and it has been directed that out of the total fine amuont Rs.

6,000/- be paid to the complainant/injured Thakur Prasad, whereby, the learned trial

Court vide judgment dated 07/08/2006 passed in Criminal Case No. 18/2005

convicted the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 325/34 of IPC and

sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Six Months each with fine of

Rs. 500/- each with default stipulation and acquitted the petitioners from the offence

punishable under sections 148 of IPC and also acquitted the rest of the accused

persons from the charges levelled against them.

2. As per prosecution story, short facts of the case leading to filing of this

criminal revision are that the complainant Thakur Prasad on 07/06/1983 at about 10

Pm has lodged a report at police station Basoda, District Vidisha in regard to the

incident took place on 07/06/1983 (i.e. on same day) at 3 Pm alleging therein that he

was going from Khaikheda to village Ravan and at about 3 Pm, he reached near to

village Ravan and on the way, Ramkaran, Ramlakhan, Ramcharan and Soma, R/o

Khaikheda stopped him and assaulted him by means of lathi. Ramcharan assaulted

the complainant by means of lathi on his left hand, Ramkaran assaulted by means of

lathi on his head and Soma assaulted him by means of lathi on his right hand and

thereafter all the accused persons pulled and brought him at Khaikheda and assaulted

him. Thereafter, complainant's brother namely Ramswaroop and villagers rescued Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY him. On lodging of F.I.R. bearing crime No. 323/83 at police station Ganjbasoda, NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 07-12-2022 05:11:50 PM

Dist. Vidisha, criminal law was triggered and set in motion, investigation agency

arrived at spot, the injured was sent to the hospital for medical examination and X-

ray was done; recorded the statements of the eye-witnesses; prepared the spot map;

arrested the accused persons and after completion of all due formalities, the charge

sheet was submitted before the trial Court having criminal jurisdiction.

3. The learned trial Court framed the charges against the petitioners for the

offence punishable under sections 148, 325 r/w section 149 of IPC, which were

denied by them. In order to bring home the charges, prosecution has examined

as many as Four witnesses (PW-1 to PW-4) and placed Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-4

documents on record. The defence of accused is of false implication and the

same defence has been put forth by them in their statement recorded under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

4. The learned trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the rival parties and

after appreciating the evidence available on record vide judgment dated 07/08/2006

passed in Criminal Case No. 18/2005 convicted the petitioners for the offence

punishable under Section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for Six Months each with fine of Rs. 500/- each with default

stipulation. Being agrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal bearing Cr.A. No.

266/2006 before the Second Additional Sessions Judge (fast tract), Basoda, District

Vidisha. The learned lower appellate court after hearing learned counsel for the rival Signature Not Verified parties vide impugned judgment dated 17/08/2007 has partly allowed and modified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 07-12-2022 05:11:50 PM

the criminal appeal filed by the petitioners to the extent that the petitioners were

convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced each

of them to undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court with fine of Rs. 3,000/- each

with default stipulation, against which, the present revision is filed.

5. Learned counsel for the accused / petitioners argued that the petitioners have

falsely been implicated in the case. It is further argued that there are omissions and

contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It is further submitted

that independent witness PW-1 Shankarlal has been examined, who has not supported

the story of the proseuction and has turned hostile. It is further argued that the lower

appellate court has not considered the facts and grounds mentioned by the petitioners

in their appeal and has passed the impugned judgment in cyclostyle manner. It is

further argued that the lower appellate court in para 7 of the judgment has admitted

the fact that the entire prosecution story is doubtful and is not made out. It is further

argued that there are lot of contracdictions and omissions in the statements of the

complainant Thakur Prasad and learned lower appellate court in para 12 of the

judgment has admitted the fact that in certain places in the statement of the

complainant false deposition has been made by him. It is further argued that the

medical report is belied and contradictory. It is further argued that the petitioners

being first offenders are entitled to get the benefit of provisions of Probation of

Offenders Act, which have not been granted to them. On these grounds, it is prayed

that theNotrevision Signature Verified filed by the petitioners deserves to be allowed and the judgment of Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR conviction deserves to be set aside.

Signing time: 07-12-2022 05:11:50 PM

6. Learned counsel for respondent / State submits that after due appreciation of

evidence, learned Court below has found the offence proved against the petitioners,

which requires no interference. It is submitted that the revision filed by the

petitioners be dismissed.

7. The prosecution has examined as many as f our witnesses in support of its

case. PW- 2 Dr. R.P. Tiwari who has examined Thakur Prasad has stated that the

at the time of medical examination on 07/08/86, the injured had 12 injuries on

his body. The injured had fracture in his left hand which is grievous in nature.

Other injuries are simple in nature. All the injuries were caused by hard and

blunt object.

8. PW-4 Thakur Prasad has in his court evidence described the incident in

detail and said that the present appellants/ accused persons have inflicted the

above injuries upon him by lathies. The FIR was lodged on the same day. The

medical examination was also conducted on the same day i.e. on 07/06/83 .

9. The evidence of PW-4 Thakur Prasad is supported by medical evidence

and the medical examination was done on the date of incident itself. Nothing

has been emerged in the statements of PW- 2 Dr. R.P. Tiwari and PW-4 Thakur

Prasad which may raise doubt over their credibility. After consideration of

evidence of prosecution witnesses, this Court is of the view that no illegality has been

committed by the learned Courts below in convicting the petitioners, hence the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY judgment of conviction passed by the learned Courts below requires no interference NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 07-12-2022 05:11:50 PM

and the same is hereby maintained. The quantum of sentence is also found to be

appropriate in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.

10. In the result, this criminal revision filed by petitioners being devoid of merit

and substance is hereby dismissed.

Certified copy as per rules.

(SUNITA YADAV) JUDGE Durgekar*

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 07-12-2022 05:11:50 PM