Rikesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 2902 MP

1                                                  Cr.R. No.347-2022

     THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, INDORE BENCH
                     Criminal Revision No. 347 -2022

       (Rikesh and Pandiya vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another)

Indore, Dated: 02.03.2022
       Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.

       Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned Govt. Advocate for the

respondent/State.

       Records of the courts below are available.

       With the consent of the counsel for the parties, this criminal

revision is heard and disposed of finally.

                               ORDER

1. This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section

401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred

against the judgment dated 14.1.2022, passed by the learned

Sessions Judge Barwani, District-Barwani (M.P.) thereby the

learned Judge has affirmed the judgment dated 13.3.2020 passed

by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Barwani, District-

Barwani in RCT No.374/2018 whereby the petitioners were found

guilty for offence punishable under Section 325/34 of the I.P.C.

and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one

year with fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, three

months additional rigorous imprisonment.

2. Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has submitted that

the petitioners have been convicted for offence punishable under

Section 325/34 of the IPC and a short sentence of one rigorous

imprisonment has been awarded to them and as they have already

undergone more than one and a half months of incarceration out of

one year, the petition may be disposed of and the sentence may be

reduced to the period already undergone by them by increasing the

fine amount as the incident has taken place on the spur of the

moment. It is further submitted that if the revision petition is

admitted, it would be probably come for final hearing after a

decade and would be argued on the same lines.

3. Counsel for the State, on the other hand has opposed the

prayer and it is submitted that the injuries each have been inflicted

by both the petitioners on the head of the injured Ramesh and thus,

no error has been committed by the courts below in convicting the

petitioners and as such no interference is called for.

4. Heard the counsel for the parties and also perused the record.

5. From the record, it is found that so far as the incident is

concerned, it took place on 6.8.2018 at around 18.35 hours and

within twenty minutes time, the FIR has been lodged under

Sections 294, 323/34 & 506 (II) of the IPC. However, the charge

sheet has been filed under Sections 294, 325/34 506(Part-2) of the

IPC under which the petitioners have been convicted.

6. So far as the injuries suffered by the complainant Ramesh

s/o Puniya are concerned, the injured has been examined by Dr.

Pratap Singh Patel (P.W.7), who found the following injuries :-

1. Lacerated wound measuring 2 inch x 1/2 inch fractured bone on the tempo parietal region and near occipital region.

2. Lacerated wound on the head measuring 1 inch x 1/2 inch by bone on the parietal region.

3. Abrasion on the left shoulder region.

7. Dr. Patel has also opined that the injured has no fracture

on the bone and in his cross-examination he has admitted that such

injury can also be caused by falling from motorcycle.

8. Dr. Kailashchandra Mandloi (P.W.8) has been examined by

the prosecution and proved the C.T. Scan report of the

complainant Ramesh wherein it was found he had 5.8 inch x 1.8

cm blood clot (extradural hematoma) on the upper side of his head

and who had also suffered right parietal bone fracture. The

injured/complainant was discharged from the hospital on

14.8.2018. Thus, the complainant has been hospitalized for a

period of around seven days.

9. So far as the genesis of the incident is concerned, according

to the complainant Ramesh, he knows the petitioners Rikesh and

Pandiya. Rikesh happens to be the husband of Kochiya Bai and

Pandiya is Rikesh's father.

10. It is alleged that on the date of the incident, when the

complainant was taking one Seema Bai to drop her to her uncle's

home while returning he also met Kochiyabai and told her that as

his aunt had passed away, why did she not come, which led to the

dispute between the parties and Rikesh threw stone on him hitting

him on the head and thereafter another stone was also thrown by

the father-in-law of Kochiyabai the Petitioner-Pandiya which also

hit him on the head and thereafter he fell unconscious and was

taken to the hospital. Thus, it is apparent that the dispute has taken

place on the spur of the moment on a trivial issue leading to

pelting of stone by the present petitioners on the complainant. In

such circumstances, considering the fact that the injured was

required to be hospitalized for around seven days due to head

injury and the petitioners have already undergone more than one

and a half months of the incarceration, in the considered opinion

of this Court, the interest of justice would be served, if the

petitioners' jail sentence is reduced from one year incarceration to

four months' incarceration. However, the fine amount is further

enhanced to Rs.15,000/-each from Rs.5,000/- each, meaning

thereby, the petitioners would be required to pay an additional

amount of Rs. 10,000/-each as fine amount which shall be

deposited before the concerned trial Court. On payment of the

aforesaid fine and on completion of four months' of incarceration,

the petitioners be released from jail. The fine amount so received

from the petitioners may also be paid to the complainant by the

learned Judge of the trial court as compensation. On failure to

deposit the amount, the petitioners shall undergo the remaining

sentence as directed by the Courts below.

11. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part to the

extent herein above indicated. The petitioners are in jail; they shall

serve their sentence as aforesaid and shall be released accordingly.

12. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for

compliance.

Certified copy, as per rules.

(Subodh Abhayankar ) JUDGE

moni

Digitally signed by MONI RAJU Date: 2022.03.04 17:16:07 +05'30'