Kripal @ Tripal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 5695 MP

                                                  1

            IN THE           HIGH COURT               OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                         AT I N D O R E
                                              BEFORE
                            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA

                                   ON THE 10th OF APRIL, 2023

                               CRIMINAL REVISION No. 73 of 2016

            BETWEEN:-
            KRIPAL @ TRIPAL S/O PREMSINGH, AGED
            ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ARICULTURE
            GRAM DOODHI, P.S. KARANWAS, DISTT.
            RAJGARH (BIAORA) (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                       .....PETITIONER
            (BY SHRI HIMANSHU JOSHI - ADVOCATE )

            AND
            THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
            HOUSE OFFICER THRU. P.S. KARANWAS,
            DISTT.  RAJGARH  (BIAORA)  (MADHYA
            PRADESH)
                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
            ( BY MS. VARSHA THAKUR GA)
            _____________________________________________________________________
                     This revision coming on for direction this day, the court passed the
            following:

                                               ORDER

The petitioner has filed present criminal revision under section 397 of Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11/01/2016 passed by 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Biora, District - Rajgarh in Criminal Appeal no. 239/2013 whereby the judgment dated 03/08/2013 passed by the JMFC, Biora in Criminal Case no. 316/2011 has been maintained whereby the petitioner has been convicted under section 325 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year R.IVerified Signature Not with fine of Rs. 500/- with usual default stipulation. Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 4/11/2023 3:49:47 PM

2. Prosecution case in brief is that on 24/04/2004, complainant Rukmanibai alongwith her husband Gorelal and son Laxmichand was returning to her home, at that time, near village - Chainpuriya main road, present petitioner along with co-accused Premsingh obstructed them and started abusing in filthy language and stated that why you have come in our village. Thereafter, petitioner Kripal pelted stones by using gulel, due to which, Gorelal sustained injuries on his forehead. Co- accused Premsingh also gave blow of wooden stick, due to which, the complainant got injured. Accused persons also threatened them that in future, if they enter the village - Manzakheda, they would kill her. Thereafter, complainant Rukmanibai lodged FIR at police station - Biora. MLC of injured Gorelal was conducted by Dr. Suraj Kumar Bansal (PW-6), who was posted at civil hospital, Biora. He found fracture on left and right partial region and also found fracture on right side of tibia and fibula. After completion of the investigation, charge- sheet was filed against the petitioner and the co-accused before the JMFC, Biora, who framed charges under section 341, 294, 325, 506 of IPC against the petitioner and the co-accused person. The trial Court, after considering the submissions advanced by both the parties and scrutinizing the entire evidence available on record, convicted the petitioner under section 325 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I of one year with fine of Rs. 500/- with usual default stipulation.

3. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred criminal appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Biora, but the same was also dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence awarded by both the courts below, the petitioner has preferred this criminal revision before this Court. Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 4/11/2023 3:49:47 PM

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while scrutinizing the judgment passed by both the courts below has raised contention firstly the police did not seized gulel and stones which were used in the instant incident. The used weapon did not duly verify during trial. Dr. Rameshchandra (PW-4) and Dr. Suraj Kumar Bansal (PW-6) admit in their cross-examination that the victim may sustain certain injuries due to accidental fall down from motorcycle, but the trial Court ignored the same. There is material contradictions in the statement of the victim and the medical evidence available on record. The trial Court did not consider the evidence available on record, hence he prays that the impugned judgment passed by both the Courts below be set aside and the petitioner be acquitted from all the charges.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner stating that there is sufficient evidence available on record and the both the Courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner on the basis of cogent evidence available on record.

6. Both the parties were heard at length and perused the record.

7. From perusal of the evidence available on record, it appears that victim Gorelal (PW-3) has categorically stated in his statement that at the time of the incident, while he along with his wife Rukmanibai and son Laxmichand was returning to his home, at that time, present petitioner along with co-accused Premsingh obstructed his way and told him that how much money he has brought. When he denied, present petitioner Kripal pelted stones by means of gulel and co-accused Premsingh also threw stones on his legs, due to which, his leg got Signature Not Verified fractured and he became unconscious on the spot. Statement of victim Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 4/11/2023 3:49:47 PM

Gorelal is well supported by the statements of eye witnesses Rukmanibai (PW-1) and Laxmichand (PW-2). Although they are wife and son of victim Gorelal, but their presence on the spot is not disputed by the petitioner.

8. Statements of victim Gorelal and his wife Rukmanibai and son Laxmichand are well supported by statements of Dr. Rameshchand (PW-4) and Dr. Suraj Kumar Bansal (PW-6). They have proved that the victim Gorelal sustained bony injury over his head and right side of tibia and fibula. Complainant Rukmanibai promptly lodged FIR ( Ex.-P/1) at concerned police station. There is no material contradictions and omissions proved by the petitioner during cross-examination of these witnesses, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the statements made by victim Gorelal and eye witnesses Rukmanibai and Laxmichand.

9. In the obtaining facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that there is no delay in lodging FIR. The injuries sustained by victim Gorelal has been duly proved, hence contention in that regard is rejected. However, looking to the impeachable testimony of the eye witnesses and the corroborating medical evidence, this Court is of the considered view that that the trial Court has not committed any error in holding that the victim Gorelal sustained bony injuries on account of causing injuries by the petitioner.

10. So far as quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has suffered jail incarceration from 03/08/2013 i.e. the date of judgment passed by the first Appellate Court till 20/08/2013. He was regularly marking his presence before the trial Court, the appellate Court as well as this Court. He is a poor person having no criminal antecedent, Signature Not Verified hence learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the sentence awarded Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 4/11/2023 3:49:47 PM

by the trial Court be reduced to the period already undergone, but it appears that the petitioner has suffered jail incarceration, which is less than one month. Victim Gorelal sustained bony injury over his head and tibia and fibula bone. Head is the sensitive part of the body.

11. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the jail sentence undergone by the petitioner is not sufficient, but the petitioner is facing trial for last ten years. He is now 46 years old person, therefore, it would be appropriate to reduce the jail sentence awarded to the petitioner.

12. Considering the aforesaid, the one year rigorous imprisonment awarded to the petitioner under section 325 of IPC is reduced to the period of three months rigorous imprisonment. The fine amount of Rs. 500/- imposed by both the Courts below is hereby affirmed.

13. In light of the aforesaid, present criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent as indicated herein above. The petitioner is on bail; his bail bond and surety bond stand canceled. He be taken into custody forthwith. The order regarding disposal of the property as pronounced is also affirmed.

14. Let a copy of this order along with the record be sent back to the concerned Court below for necessary information and compliance.

CC as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE amol

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 4/11/2023 3:49:47 PM