Madhya Pradesh High Court
Inder Singh vs Mangilal And 14 Ors. on 24 April, 2023
Author: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 24 th OF APRIL, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 432 of 2013
BETWEEN:-
INDER SINGH S/O NARAYAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 30
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILL.ROSALA
P.S.TALEN TEH.NARSINGHGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI BHARAT YADAV - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MANGILAL AND 14 ORS. S/O HAZARILAL, AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, VILL.ROSLA JAGIR P.S.TALEN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SARDAR SIGNH S/O HAZARILAL, AGED ABOUT 30
YEAR S , VIL ROSLA JAGIR, P.S. TALEN DIST
RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. HEMU @ HEMRAJ S/O HAZARILAL, AGED ABOUT
24 YEARS, VIL ROSLA JAGIR, P.S. TALEN DIST
RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. ANAR SIGNH S/O GHEESALAL, AGED ABOUT 45
YEAR S , VIL ROSLA JAGIR, P.S. TALEN DIST
RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. MUKESH SINGH S/O RAMCHANDRA, AGED
ABOUT 22 YEARS, VIL ROSLA JAGIR, P.S. TALEN
DIST RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SACHIN S/O MOHAN, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, VIL
ROSLA JAGIR, P.S. TALEN DIST RAJGARH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
7. PRATAP SINGH S/O BHANWERLAL, AGED ABOUT
29 YEARS, VIL ROSLA JAGIR, P.S. TALEN DIST
RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 4/25/2023
10:42:18 AM
2
8. KAMAL SINGH S/O BHAGIRATH, AGED ABOUT 20
YEAR S , VIL ROSLA JAGIR, P.S. TALEN DIST
RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. BHANWERLAL S/O BADRILAL, AGED ABOUT 45
YEAR S , VIL ROSLA JAGIR, P.S. TALEN DIST
RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
10. RAMNATH S/O BADRILAL, AGED ABOUT 27
YEAR S , VIL ROSLA JAGIR, P.S. TALEN DIST
RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
11. NANADAN SINGH S/O BHAGIRATH, AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, VIL ROSLA JAGIR, P.S. TALEN DIST
RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
12. GAJRAJ @ JAGDISH S/O BHANWERLAL, AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, VIL ROSLA JAGIR, P.S. TALEN
DIST RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
13. RAMPRASAD S/O RAMCHANDRA, AGED ABOUT
23 YEARS, VIL ROSLA JAGIR, P.S. TALEN DIST
RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
14. RAMCHANDRA S/O GHEESALAL, AGED ABOUT 50
YEAR S , VIL ROSLA JAGIR, P.S. TALEN DIST
RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
15. THE STATE OF M.P. THR P.S. TALEN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 8 AND 10 TO 13;
SHRI RAHUL SOLANKI - GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT
NO.15)
This revision coming on for direction this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard on IA.No.15527/2022, which is an application for deleting the
name of respondent No.9 Bhanwarlal S/o Badrilal.
Application is well supported by an affidavit as well as by the death
certificate of the Bhanwarlal. As per the death certificate Bhanwarlal has been
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 4/25/2023
10:42:18 AM
died on 19/11/2021.
Therefore, IA.No.15527/2022 is allowed and this criminal revision stands
abated against the respondent No.9. Applicant is directed to delete the name of
respondent No.9 from the array of the respondent. Let necessary amendment
be carried out within a week.
With the consent of the applicant, matter is heard finally.
The applicant has preferred this criminal revision under Section 397(1) of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') being aggrieved by the
judgment dated 28/01/2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track
Court), Narsinghgarh, District Rajgarh (Biaora) in Criminal Appeal
No.141/2010, whereby the judgment dated 04/05/2010 passed by Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Narsinghgarh in Criminal Case No.56/2009 has been
modified and respondents No.1 to 14 have been convicted and for the offence
under Section 148, 323/149 and 325/149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short
'IPC') and sentenced with fine of Rs.100/- each, fine of Rs.100/- each, till the
rising of the court with fine of Rs.500/- each.
The facts of the case in brief are that on 31/12/2008 complainant
launched an FIR (Exhibit-P/1) against respondents No.1 to 14 by stating that at
about 11:30 AM when he was at home, all the respondents /accused persons
came there armed with wooden sticks and farshi and started abusing him for
old enmity. At that time, respondent No.7 Pratap Singh gave a blow of wooden
stick to mother of the complainant Anaar Bai and respondents No.2 to 9 gave
blows to stick to the Santosh Bai (PW-5) due to which she sustain injury over
her right and left hand. Respondents No.3, 5 and 14 caused injuries to the
Sumitra Bai (PW-8). When complainant/applicant went to rescue his wife,
respondents No.1, 4 and 9 cause injury by giving blow of wooden sticks and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 4/25/2023
10:42:18 AM
farshi. Radheshyam (PW-3) came to intervention then respondents No.2, 8 and
11 also hit him by wooden stick. Incident was witnesses by Chhotelal (PW-7)
and Dulichand (PW-6). Accordingly, offence has been registered against the
respondents No.1 to 14 / accused persons.
The trial Court after due appreciation of the evidence available on record
convicted the respondents No.1 to 14 / accused persons for the offence under
Section 148, 294, 323/149, 325/149 and 506(2) of the IPC and sentenced each
of them with 03 months RI, 06 months RI and 01 year RI with fine of Rs.200/-
respectively. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, respondents No.1 to 14
preferred a criminal appeal before the First Appellate Court. Learned First
Appellate Court maintained the convicting but reduced the sentenced as
mentioned herein above. Therefore, complainant / applicant preferred this
criminal revision under Section 397 (1) of Cr.P.C. before this Court.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the sentence passed by the
lower appellate Court is contrary to law, evidence and facts available on record
and lower appellate Court has erred in reducing the jail sentence without even
considering the matter on merits. the sentence imposed upon the respondents
No.1 to 14 is inadequate and not warranted under the law. Hence, he prays that
impugned judgment dated 28/01/2013 passed by the Lower Appellate Court be
set aside and the respondents / accused persons be convicted for the offences
for which they were convicted and charged by the trial Court.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.15 /State submits that the lower
appellate Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the respondents No.1 to
14, therefore, no interference is required in this matter.
Both the parties are heard at length and perused the record.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 4/25/2023
10:42:18 AM
From perusal of the record it appears that the aforesaid incident took
place about fifteen years ago in the year 2008. Respondents No.1 to 14 are
poor villagers and they are not having any criminal past. Some of the
respondents are aged persons. They are facing trial since 2008. In view of the
above, sentence passed by the lower Appellate Court appears to be just and
proper and it cannot be considered as inadequate sentence.
Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed
by the lower Appellate Court dated 28/01/2013 is just and proper and is passed
after due appreciation of evidence and no interference is warranted by this
Court. Accordingly, the criminal revision stands dismissed and the order
passed by the lower Appellate Court is hereby affirmed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Tej
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 4/25/2023
10:42:18 AM
