Wednesday, 20, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Mukesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 13539 MP

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 13539 MP
Judgement Date : 21 August, 2023

Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 August, 2023
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
                                                               1
                           IN     THE        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT INDORE
                                                     BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
                                                 ON THE 21 st OF AUGUST, 2023
                                            CRIMINAL REVISION No. 924 of 2016

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.    MUKESH S/O MANGILAL PATIDAR, AGED ABOUT
                                30  YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMER DABALA,
                                HARDU, TEHSIL AND DISTT. UJJAIN (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          2.    ARUN S/O KANHIYALAL PATIDAR, AGED ABOUT
                                26  YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMER DABALA,
                                HARDU, TEHSIL AND DISTT. UJJAIN (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          3.    RAMESH S/O SAVAJI PATIDAR, AGED ABOUT 70
                                YEAR S, DABALA, HARDU, TEHSIL AND DISTT.
                                UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                             .....APPLICANTS
                          (SHRI AKHILESH KUMAR SAXENA- ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                          OFFICER THRU. P.S. MAKDON, DISTT. UJJAIN
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                            .....RESPONDENT
                          (SHRI RAJESH JOSHI - GOVT. ADVOCATE)

                                This revision coming on for direction this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
                                                                ORDER

With consent of the parties heard finally.

1 . This criminal revision under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.07.2016 passed by the IXth Additional Session Judge, District-Ujjain in Criminal Appeal No.156/2016, affirming Signature Not Verified Signed by: AKANKSHA LAHORIYA Signing time: 8/22/2023 3:39:11 PM

the judgment dated 15.03.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in Criminal Case No.405/2011 whereby petitioners have been convicted for offence under Section 325, 325/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 06 months and with fine of Rs.500/- each with default stipulations.

At the very outset, counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner no.3/Ramesh has already been expired, hence, the appeal is abated qua petitioner no.3.

2. The petitioners have preferred this criminal revision on several grounds but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners did not press this revision on merit and nor assailed the finding part of judgment. He confines his argument on the point of sentence only and prays that since the petitioners have undergone about 15 days of jail incarceration, their sentence be reduced to the period

already undergone. It is also submitted that the petitioners have already deposited the fine amount so awarded by the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that the petitioners deserve some leniency as they have already suffered the ordeal of the trial since 2011 i.e. for a period of 12 years. It is further submitted that this petition be partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioners be reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the fine amount.

3. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supports the impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of this revision.

4 . Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be just and proper.

5. However, the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court has not committed any error in appreciation of evidence available on record. Further, it is found that both the courts below considered the evidence available on record and correctly found that the case of the prosecution is well supported by the injured, witnesses and medical testimony. Both the Courts below have well considered the material available on record, hence, no infirmity is found in the impugned order of conviction passed by both the Courts below, accordingly, the same is upheld.

6. So far as the sentence of the petitioners are concerned, after the lapse of Signature Not Verified Signed by: AKANKSHA LAHORIYA Signing time: 8/22/2023 3:39:11 PM

almost 12 years, the submissions have been made by the petitioners regarding enhancement fine appear to be proper. The petitioners have suffered the ordeal of criminal case since 2011, this Court finds it expedient to partly allow this revision petition by affirming the conviction of the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioners is hereby reduced to the sentence already undergone by increasing the fine amount from Rs.500/- (each) to Rs.10,000/- each under Section 325 and 325/34 of IPC (as applicable) to be paid by the petitioners within a period of one month from today. Out of the fine amount so deposited by the petitioner Rs.5,000/- each be paid to Injured-Mukesh under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. by the trial Court. The fine amount, if already deposited as well as the compensation amount paid to the injured if any shall be adjusted. The bail bond of the petitioners shall be discharged after deposit of the fine amount. If the petitioners fail to deposit the fine amount, they will suffer two month of simple imprisonment in default.

8 . A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.

(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE akanksha

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AKANKSHA LAHORIYA Signing time: 8/22/2023 3:39:11 PM

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter