Rameshchandra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 13661 MP

                                                                                              1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                      AT GWALIOR
                                          BEFORE

                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK

             CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3420 of 2022
       Between:-
1.     RAMESHCHANDRA S/O TULARAM DHAKAD,
       AGED 58 YEARS,
2.     LAKKHIRAM S/O TULARAM DHAKAD, AGED 53
       YEARS.
3.     DHANSU S/O RAMESH DHAKAD AGED 30
       YEARS.
4.     GAJENDRA S/O RAMESH DHAKAD, AGED 33
       YEARS.
5.     VISAMBHAR S/O RAMESH DHAKAD, AGED 27
       YEARS.
       ALL RESIDENT OF SAMASPUR, POLICE
       STATION   POHARI,  DISTRICT SHIVPURI
       (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                       .....PETITIONERS
       (BY SHRI R.P. GUPTA- ADVOCATE)

       AND

       STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
       THROUGH POLICE STATION, POHARI DISTRICT
       SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                       .....RESPONDENT
       (BY MS. KALPANA PARMAR - PANEL LAWYER)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Reserved on                                  :       28-09-2022
        Delivered on                                 :       17-10-2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                   ORDER

1. The present revision petition under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. is

preferred by the petitioners against the judgment of conviction and order

of sentence dated 29-08-2022 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions

Judge, Shivpuri District Shivpuri in Criminal Appeal No.349/2017 partly

modifying the judgment of conviction passed by learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Pohari District Shivpuri in Criminal Case

No.615/2012 whereby petitioners have been convicted as under:

S.No.          Offence u/s        Imprisonment        Fine      Default
                                                                Stipulation
1          147 of IPC             3 months' RI    Rs.300/-      One month RI
2          451 of IPC             3 months' RI    Rs.300/-      One month RI
3          325 r/w 149 of IPC     1 year's RI     Rs.1,000/-    Two months RI
4          325 r/w 149 of IPC     1 year's RI     Rs.1,000/-    Two months RI
5          323 r/w 149 of IPC     3 months' RI    Rs.300/-      One month RI
6          323 r/w 149 of IPC     3 months' RI    Rs.300/-      One month RI

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that on 23-10-2012 complainant

Lapairam Jatav lodged the complaint to the effect that on the basis of

fencing related dispute, some altercations took place between him and

accused Vishambhar and thereafter all the accused persons having

common intention, assaulted the complainant and when his wife Santo

Bai, brother Khachera and Shivcharan came to rescue him, they were

also beaten by the accused persons, due to which complainant and other

injured received several injuries. On complaint, FIR Ex-P/1 was

registered against all the accused persons at Crime No.238/2012 for

offence under Sections 147, 149, 323, 506-B and 451 of IPC. MLC of

complainant party was conducted in which they were shown to have

been sustained several injuries including contusions and abrasions.

Matter was investigated and challan was filed in the matter.

3. Before the trial Court -Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pohari, district

Shivpuri petitioners abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. Prosecution

examined 10 witnesses in support of its case and in defence, petitioners

have been examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. No other witness has

been examined from the defence side as defence witness. After recording

of evidence ocular as well as documentary and hearing the submission of

counsel for the parties, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the

petitioners as referred above.

4. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial

Court has been challenged by the petitioners by preferring criminal

appeal. The appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and thereafter

convicted and sentenced the petitioners as indicated above.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the Courts

below erred in convicting the petitioners for the offence referred above.

There is material contradictions and omissions between the statements of

prosecution witnesses in relation to place of incident and eye witnesses

present on the spot and such aspect has not been considered by the trial

Court. Two incidents have been mingled to make out the present case.

As per the version of complainant Lapairam (PW-1), Santo Bai (PW-2),

Khachera (PW-3), Shivcharan (PW-4) and Kalawati (PW-5) there is

boundary dispute of agriculture land between the parties and earlier also

several litigation took place between them thus, in order to take revenge

this false case has been registered against the accused persons.

Independent witness did not support the story of prosecution. Further,

the doctor who conducted x-ray of the injured has not been examined by

the prosecution before the trial Court.

6. Alternatively, it is further submitted that looking to the nature of offence,

conviction and jail sentence, according to provisions of Section 357 of

Cr.P.C. compensation/fine at higher side be directed to be paid, which

petitioners are ready to pay. Accordingly, it is submitted that the jail

sentence of petitioners be reduced to the sentence already undergone by

them for which petitioners are ready to pay compensation to the

complainant and injured persons as this Court deems fit.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the

prayer and prayed for dismissal of petition. However, he fairly accepted

that if petitioners are ready to pay enhanced fine then only their case for

undergone may be considered.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. It is a case where petitioners are facing the allegation of causing Lathi

blow to the complainant and other injured persons over various part of

their body. The aforesaid allegation of causing Lathi blow to the

complainant and other injured persons is duly corroborated by medical

evidence Ex-P/4 to P/7 conducted by Dr. Chandrashekhar Gupta (PW-7).

In the case in hand, complainant and other injured persons sustained

several injuries caused by petitioners and their companion.

10. From perusal of statements of complainant Lapairam (PW-1), Santo Bai

(PW-2), Khachera (PW-3), Shivcharan (PW-4), Kalawati (PW-5) and Dr.

Chandrashekhar Gupta (PW-7), it is clear that petitioners assaulted the

complainant and other persons and the statements of all these witnesses

are duly corroborated by the medical report Ex-P/4 to P/7 proved by Dr.

Chandrashekhar Gupta (PW -7). Further the independent witness Vinod

(PW-6) categorically stated that accused persons used to stop their way

and they did not permit them to use the common passage. Although

some inconsistencies, contradictions and omissions crept into the

statements of these witnesses but they are not of such nature by which

commission of offence with the complainant may come under the clouds

of doubt.

11. Dr. Chandrashekhar Gupta (PW-7) who conducted MLC of the

complainant and other injured persons vide Ex-P/4 to P/7 opined that

complainant and injured persons sustained several injuries including

lacerated and abrasions over their person but according to opinion of

doctor all the injuries were simple in nature and caused by hard and

blunt object. Further, perusal of statements of witnesses and spot map

Ex-P/2 commission of offence under Section 451 of IPC against the

petitioners comes under doubt.

12. In view of the above, looking to the testimony of complainant Lapairam

(PW-1) supported by res gestae evidence of injured witnesses and the

injuries duly corroborated by medical evidence and further the testimony

of doctor, this Court is of the considered view that both the Courts below

did not commit any error in convicting the petitioners. Prosecution

succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Courts

below duly vetted the rival submissions and thereafter passed the

impugned judgment and conviction against the petitioners. The Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of K. Prakashan Vs. P.K.Surenderan (2008) 1

SCC 258 and T. Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 SCC

401 held that if two views are possible and one view is taken by the trial

Court after due appreciation of evidence then unless sheer perversity or

illegality crept in to the judgment of trial Court, the scope of interference

is limited.

13. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners also

submitted that from the date of passing of impugned judgment of

conviction by the appellate Court, petitioners are in jail and they suffered

almost two months (49 days) incarceration and further they have already

suffered 10 years' long ordeal of trial, therefore, case of petitioners be

considered for the sentence already undergone by them, for which they

are ready to pay compensation to the complainant and injured persons,

therefore, compensation/fine amount is enhanced.

14. In view of the above, considering the facts and circumstances of the case

benefit of reduction of sentence is extended to the petitioners/revisionists

to the extent that conviction recorded by the trial Court is maintained but

sentence deserves to be modified to the extent that the sentence which

petitioners/revisionsist have already undergone, would be sufficient for

serving jail sentence but in view of Section 357 of Cr.P.C. and keeping

in view the number of injuries suffered by the complainant -Lapairam

(PW-1) and other injured persons, this Court orders the petitioners to pay

compensation to the tune of Rs.35,000/- (Rs.7,000/- by each

petitioners) to the complainant and injured persons and same be

deposited within one month from today while giving undertaking

before the trial Court that if they failed to pay compensation Rs.35,000/-

(in addition to the fine amount imposed by the Courts below) to the

complainant and injured persons, then trial Court would proceed

against them to serve remaining part of jail sentence. Thus, if

petitioners/revisionists do not deposit the amount as directed by this

Court within the stipulated time then they shall have to serve the

remaining jail sentence, for which the Courts below sentenced them. It is

made clear that this benefit of undergone has been given to the

petitioners in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case where

petitioners suffered almost one month's incarceration and suffered ordeal

of trial for 10 years.

15. Resultantly, the revision petition preferred by the petitioners stands

disposed of while maintaining the conviction recorded by the Courts

below and the sentence is reduced to the sentence already undergone by

them with further direction to pay compensation of Rs.35,000/- (in

addition to the fine imposed by the Courts below) to the

complainant and injured persons (equally). Petitioners are in jail.

They be released forthwith and are set free if not required in any other

case.

The trial Court is directed to call the complainant and injured

persons and get the payment of aforesaid amount done in their

favour immediately after deposit of the aforesaid compensation

amount by the petitioners. The compensation/fine amount shall be

paid to the complainant and injured persons after due verification.

16. Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for information and

necessary compliance.

17. Revision petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

(Anand Pathak) Judge Anil*

ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA 2022.09.22 16:43:01 -07'00'