Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prem Singh Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 July, 2022
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY
ON THE 11th OF JULY, 2022
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 884 of 2022
Between:-
1. PREM SINGH LODHI S/O SHRI PARAMSUKH
LODHI , AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
LABOUR VILLAGE VANKHEDI TAHSIL AND
DISTRICT RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. NEERAJ LODHI S/O SHRI PREM SINGH LODHI ,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR
R/O VILLAGE-VANKHEDI, TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT-RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. MANISH LODHI S/O SHRI PREM SINGH LODHI ,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR
R/O VILLAGE-VANKHEDI, TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT-RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANTS
( SHRI ABHINAV DUBEY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
APPLICANTS )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
P.S. KOTWALI RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI Y.D. YADAV, LEARNED G.A. COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT / STATE )
This revision coming on for final hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This revision has been filed against the judgment dated 03.03.2022
Signature Not Verified
SAN passed by Sessions Judge, Raisen, District Raisen (M.P.) in Cri. Appeal
Digitally signed by NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
No.13/2021 whereby learned Sessions Judge affirmed the judgment of
Date: 2022.07.12 11:24:06 IST
conviction dated 16.07.2021 passed by learned JMFC, Raisen, District Raisen
in Criminal Case No.401/2017 whereby learned JMFC found applicant No.1
Prem Singh Lodhi, applicant No.2 Neeraj Lodhi and applicant No.3 Manish
Lodhi guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324/34 of IPC and
sentenced applicant No.1 Prem Singh Lodhi, applicant No.3 Manish Lodhi to
undergo R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.1000/- and applicant No.2 Neeraj
Lodhi to undergo R.I. for six months with fine of Rs.1000/- with default
stipulation.
As per the prosecution case, on 30.03.2017 in the night complainant /
injured Virendra Singh was sitting at his barn located near Ram Janaki temple
and was guarding the crop, at around 8:30 pm applicants Neeraj Lodhi, Prem
Singh Lodhi and Manish Lodhi came there on a bike. Manish was driving the
bike. He parked the bike at some distance and he stood there. Prem Singh
armed with a rod and Neeraj armed with a sword came to Virendra Singh and
they assaulted Virendra Singh with sword and rod due to which he sustained
injuries on his neck, right shoulder and back. Thereafter they went back from
the spot by the bike. On the report of complainant / injured Virendra Singh
police registered Crime No. 295/2017 at police station Kotwali Raisen, Distt.
Raisen for the offence punishable under section 323, 324, 34 of IPC and
investigated the matter. During the investigation police got medical examination
of injured Virendra Singh conducted and also recorded the case diary
statements of inujred Virendra Singh, Sunil Meena, Bheem Singh, Sukhdev,
Suresh and arrested the applicants and seized one iron rod from the possession
of applicant No.2 Neeraj Lodhi and after investigation police filed charge-sheet
Signature Not Verified
SAN
only against the applicants no.1 &2. On that charge sheet Criminal Case
Digitally signed by NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
No.417/2017 has been registered. Learned trial Court framed-charge against the
Date: 2022.07.12 11:24:06 IST
applicants no.1 &2 for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 324/34, 506
part-II of the IPC and tried the case. Applicants abjured their guilt and took the
defence that they are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the offence.
During trial learned trial court also took cognizance against the applicant no.3
Manish under section 319 of Cr.P.C. and also framed charge against him for the
offences punishable under Sections 294, 324/34, 506 part-II of the IPC and also
tried him along with the applicant no.1 & 2. After the trial, learned JMFC
acquitted the applicants from the charge framed under Section 294 and 506
part-II of the IPC, but found the applicants guilty for the offence punishable
under Section 324/34 of the IPC and sentenced them as aforesaid. Being
aggrieved from the judgment, applicants filed Criminal Appeal No.13/2021,
which was also dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Raisen. Being aggrieved from
that judgment, applicant filed this criminal revision.
Although, apart from the quantum of sentence, the applicants in this
revision also challenged the legality of the conviction, but during the course of
the arguments learned counsel for the applicants submitted that he did not want
to press the revision on the finding of conviction.
Otherwise also from the evidence produced by the prosecution finding
the conviction of trial Court as well as Appellate Court under Section 324/34 of
IPC appears to be correct. So finding the conviction of trial Court is confirmed.
On the point of sentence, learned counsel for the applicants submitted
that applicant No.2 Neeraj is a young boy, at the time of the incident he was 19
years of age, appellant No.3 Manish is also a young boy and applicant no.1
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Prem Singh is a teacher. It is further submitted that the applicants were on bail
Digitally signed by NAVEEN KUMAR
during trial and they never misused the liberty granted to them. The applicants
SARATHE
Date: 2022.07.12 11:24:06 IST
have been in custody since 03.03.2022. Further, the applicants have no criminal
past, nor were they involved in any unlawful activities subsequent to this
incident. So they should be given a chance to improve and they should be
released on Probation.
Learned counsel for the state opposed the prayer.
Certainly, the pre and past incidents, conduct of the appellants, cannot be
lost sight of and can be taken as mitigating circumstances. So looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicants are facing trial
since 2017 and they are in jail from the date of judgment i.e. 03.03.2022 and
considering the facts and circumstances, nature of the offence, the character of
the accused-applicants and particularly, the time period which has lapsed since
the date of incident, the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act,
1958 can be granted in this case.
In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above and considering
the scope of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, this Criminal
Revision is, accordingly, partly allowed by upholding the conviction of the
accused-applicants. However, they are granted the benefit of Section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act 1958. They are released on probation on executing
a bond of Rs.20,000/- each before the trial Court. They shall keep peace in the
society and shall not commit any such offence in future. These bonds shall be
for six months. Benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
is also extended to the applicants. With the above modification in conviction
and sentence, the revision is allowed in part.
A copy of this judgment be sent to the Court of JMFC, Raisen, District
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Raisen for information and necessary compliance.
Digitally signed by NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Certified copy as per rules.
Date: 2022.07.12 11:24:06 IST
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
JUDGE
sarathe
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Date: 2022.07.12 11:24:06 IST
