Bharatlal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 16039 MP

                       1
                                                  Cr.R. No.538/2014

          HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                 BENCH AT INDORE

                        BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
               ON THE 5th OF DECEMBER, 2022


             CRIMINAL REVISION No. 538 of 2014

BETWEEN:-
BHARATLAL S/O LAXMINARAYAN SUTAR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST AND LOHAR VILLAGE PALDUNA
DISTT. RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                      .....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER THRU.
P.S. NAMALI RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                       .....NON-APPLICANT/STATE
(BY MS. MAMTA SHANDILYA, GOVT. ADVOCATE)


       This application coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble Shri
Justice Satyendra Kumar Singh passed the following:

                           ORDER

Satyendra Kumar Singh, J.,

1. This criminal revision u/S 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 28.04.2014, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam in Criminal Appeal No. 01/2014, whereby the judgment dated 19.12.2013 convicting the applicant for the offence punishable u/S 324 of IPC and sentencing him to suffer RI for 06 months with fine of Rs.200/- passed by the Court of Judicial

Cr.R. No.538/2014

Magistrate First Class, Ratlam in Cr. Case No. 517/10, was affirmed.

2. Prosecution story, in brief is as follows :-

On 11.03.2010, at about 09:30 hours, when complainant Radheshyam went to applicant's shop situated at Village Palduna for taking his Bakkhar, a dispute arose between the complainant and applicant. Thereafter, applicant assaulted him with hot darata on left side of his neck. On the same day, at about 12:10 hours, complainant went to Police Station Namali, Distt. Ratlam and lodged an FIR (Ex. P-

1) against the applicant. Complainant was sent to Community Health Centre, Namali for medical examination where Dr. Varsha Kureel medically examined and prepared MLC report (Ex. P-6). I.O. A.S.I. Sanjeev Patil went to the place of occurrence and prepared spot map (Ex. P-2). He arrested the applicant and on his instance, seized the darata from his possession as per seizure memo (Ex. P-4). After recording of the statement of complainant and other witnesses and completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ratlam.

3. Learned Court of JMFC, Ratlam after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 19.12.2013, convicted the applicant u/S 324 of IPC. Applicant preferred appeal before the appellate Court whereby learned Court of Sessions Judge, Ratlam confirmed the judgment of conviction passed by learned Court of JMFC. Being aggrieved with the said judgement of conviction and order of sentence, applicant has preferred this revision for setting aside the impugned judgement and discharging him from the charges framed against him.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant does not wish to challenge his conviction but he confined his argument with

Cr.R. No.538/2014

regard to the sentence awarded to him. He further submits that admittedly, incident took place in the year 2010 and since then applicant is facing trial. During pendency of the trial and appeal, he has already suffered about 18 days i.e., from 28.04.2014-15.05.2014, incarceration out of six months sentence awarded to him. He further submits that it is apparent from the FIR as well as statement of Dr. Varsha Kureel (PW-5) that injuries found on the body of the complainant were not caused from the sharp side of darata. Nature of injuries was simple and admittedly incident took place all of a sudden on a very petty issue. Therefore, considering the nature of allegations and injuries found on the body of the complainant, his period of sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-applicant/State, while supporting the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence submits that the judgement was passed by the Trial Court after proper appreciation of evidence available on record. Same is well reasoned establishing the guilt of applicant beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore,confirming the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the revision filed by the applicant may be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

7. Complainant Radheshyam (PW-1) deposed that and on the date of incident at about 09:00 hours, when he had gone to applicant's shop for taking back his Bakkhar, a quarrel took place between him and applicant on which applicant assaulted him with a hot weapon darata. His aforesaid statement find support from the FIR (Ex. P-1), lodged by him and also from the statements of Bharatlal (PW-2) and Ramlal (PW-

3) and also from the medical evidence i.e., statement of Dr. Varsha

Cr.R. No.538/2014

Kureel (PW-5) and MLC report prepared by her (Ex. P-6). Nothing has extracted during the cross-examination of the aforesaid witnesses on the basis of which their evidence can be disbelieved or doubted. Hence, learned Trial Court has not committed any error in finding this fact proved that on the date of incident, applicant assaulted the complainant with a hot weapon darata on left side of his neck.

8. So far as the sentence awarded to the applicant is concerned, admittedly incident took place all of a sudden wherein, a single blow was given by the applicant to the complainant. Injuries found on the body of the complainant appears to be simple in nature. Admittedly, incident took place in the year 2010 and since then, applicant is facing trial. He has already suffered about 18 days of incarceration out of six months sentence awarded to him. Therefore, considering overall material produced on record, in view of this Court the ends of justice would be served, if the sentence awarded to the applicant for the offence punishable u/S 324 of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him with enhanced fine of Rs.5,000/-.

9. Consequently, this criminal revision is allowed in part. The conviction of the applicant passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court under Section 324 of IPC is maintained. But, the sentence awarded to the applicant for the aforesaid offences is set aside and instead thereof, the applicant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him in jail i.e., 18 days with enhanced fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional one month rigorous imprisonment. Amount of fine has to be deposited before the trial Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. Out of fine amount of Rs.5,000/-, an amount of Rs.2,500/- be paid as compensation to the complainant for

Cr.R. No.538/2014

the injuries suffered by him.

10. With the aforesaid, the criminal revision is disposed of finally.

11. If applicant is in jail, he be set at liberty if not required in any other case.

12. The Registry is directed to send back the trial Court record forthwith alongwith the copy of this judgment. Let a copy of this order be also sent to the concerned jail authorities for its speedy compliance and necessary action.

(Satyendra Kumar Singh) Judge

SJ/-

VIBHA Digitally signed by VIBHA PACHORI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA

PACHO PRADESH BENCH INDORE, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=63ade6a8efe1a32216bb40cba34e4ccadbecca 47ba9fb326339dcb3a0aa8324a, pseudonym=FBDB537CFA09A12C710F57965EBF546A 4C1B4C85, serialNumber=ECF1C4B9939647F806353FB8EEFB2CFC

RI A8D6FDAF8339ACC3728BC3A5D1ECA843, cn=VIBHA PACHORI Date: 2022.12.09 18:09:38 +05'30'