Mohan vs State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1984 MP

                                                          1
                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                                        BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                               ON THE 14th OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                                          CRIMINAL REVISION No. 96 of 2022

                              Between:-
                      1.      MOHAN S/O SHRI BABULAL CHOURASIYA , AGED
                              ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
                              PRESENT R/O ROHANI SECTOR 24 HOUSE NO 14
                              DELHI (DELHI)

                      2.      SOHAN S/O SHRI BABULAL CHOURASIYA , AGED
                              ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
                              JUNI INDORE PAAGNEETH NAER OF 03 NO
                              SCHOOL INDORE(M.P) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      3.      LAXMI W/O SHRI BABULAL CHOURASIYA , AGED
                              ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE
                              R A M WA R D GARHAKOTA P.S    GARHAKOTA
                              DISTRICT SAGAR(M.P) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      4.      BABULAL     S/O     SHRI  GANESH    PRASAD
                              CHOURASIYA , AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
                              OCCUPATION:     AGRICULTURIST    RAMWARD
                              GARHAKOTA      P.S.   GARHAKOTA   DISTRICT
                              SAGAR(M.P) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                              (BY SHRI BABOO JI CHOURASIYA, ADVOCATAE)

                              AND

                              STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. P.S. REHLI P.S.
                              REHLI DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                              (BY SHRI AMIT MISHRA, PANEL LAWYER)

                            Th is revision coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                      following:
                                                           ORDER

This revision petition is filed being aggrieved of judgment dated 25.06.2018 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Rehli, District- Sagar in Criminal Case No.730/2006 whereby petitioners have been convicted under Section 323/34 of IPC with three months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,00/- each at the rate of Rs.100/- per injured person. In default of payment of fine further one month rigorous imprisonment is ordered.

Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Against this order, appeal was filed before the Court of Second Additional Digitally signed by APARNA TIWARI Date: 2022.02.18 Sessions Judge, Rehli District- Sagar i.e. Cr.A. No.05/2018 which was decided 17:57:42 IST

vide order dated 27.08.2021 maintaining the order of the trial Court and thus rejecting the appeal on its own merits.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that about 16 years time has lapsed when incident took place. Petitioner no.1 is now 64 years of age, whereas

petitioner no.2 is about 67 years of age, petitioner no.3 is about 61 years of age and petitioner no.4 is about 89 years of age. It is submitted that initially, revision petitioners were charged under Sections 323, in the alternative 323/34, 294 and 506 Part-II of IPC but the trial Court had acquitted the present petitioners from the charges under sections 294 and 506 Part-II but convicted them under Section 323/34 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that on 01.05.2006 there was a meeting of Chourasiya's community at village Baleh in which decision was taken to ask the petitioner no.4 Babulal to vacate land of the community on which they wish to erect their 'cjts' and when complainant party had reached in front of the house

of Shankar Chourasiya then accused Babulal, Mohan, Sohan and Laxmi were called and asked not to carry out agricultural activities on the land of the community, when they abused the complainant party and had beaten them with lathis, as a result of this incident, complainant Sandeep, Hariram, Santosh, Ramkishore and Anil had sustained injuries.

It is submitted that in fact, there is a cross case and this fact has been admitted by Hariram Chourasiya (PW-1) in his cross-examination that on the report of the present petitioners a case of maarpeet is pending against Narayan, Halle, Sandeep Bali and others.

It is further submitted that independent seizure witness Ashish Jain (PW-12) is hostile, so also Lodhi Thakur(PW-13). Dr. R.S. Thakur of P.H.C. Rehli (PW-

14) in cross-examination has admitted that injuries to all the injured persons could have been caused if they would have indulged in interrupting in a fight between 10- 15 persons due to scuffle and there was no fracture to any of the accused persons. It is submitted that petitioners are facing torture of facing trial for about 16 years.

Taking into consideration their age, length of litigation, the fact that there are counter cases against the complainant party and also the fact that appellants are in

custody since 03.01.2022 i.e. for about a period of 45 days' i.e. half of the period of sentence, their sentence be declared to have undergone.

It is submitted that all four petitioners have deposited fine amount and no fine amount is pending.

In view of such submissions though prayer is opposed by Shri Amit Mishra, learned Panel Lawyer for the State but taking into consideration, age of the petitioners and the fact that there are counter cases, this Court is of the opinion that when tested on the aspect of legality and correctness in terms of appreciation of facts and law, the impugned judgments do not suffer for any infirmity, but taking

into consideration, proprietary of the maintaining the sentence, this Court deems it proper to dispose of this criminal revision by enhancing the fine amount to Rs.2500/- each, thus, totaling to Rs.10,000/-, out of which Rs.2,000/- will be paid to each of the five injured victims, in terms of the provisions contained in Section 357 of Cr.P.C, the period is declared as undergone, revision is disposed of. If the petitioners are not required in any other case, then they be released on depositing enhanced fine amount of Rs.2500/- each.

Accordingly, in above terms, revision petition is disposed of.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE AT