Veer Singh Dangi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 13901 MP

                               1
 IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT GWALIOR
                         BEFORE
            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROHIT ARYA
                            &
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                    ON THE 24 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3661 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
VEER SINGH DANGI S/O SHRI RAMSWAROOP DANGI,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, P.S. CIVIL LINE, DATIA R/O
PATHAI PURA UNAV ROAD DATIA, DISTRICT DATIA
(MADHYA PRADESH).

                                                         .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI J.P.KUSHWAH - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
      POLICE STATION CIVIL LINE, DISTRICT DATIA
      (MADHYA PRADESH).

2.    RAM KUMAR DANGI S/O SHRI RAGHUVEER
      SINGH DANGI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

3.    SANTOSH DANGI S/O SHRI RAGHUVEER SINGH
      DANGI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

4.    BALRAM DANGI S/O SHRI RAGHUVEER SINGH
      DANGI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
      RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 4 RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
      DONGERGHAT,     DIST.   DATIA   (MADHYA
      PRADESH).

                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI A.K.NIRANKARI   - PUBLIC   PROSECUTOR             FOR     THE
RESPONDENTS/STATE ON ADVANCE NOTICE)

      This revision coming on for admission this day, Justice Rohit Arya
passed the following:
                                ORDER

This Criminal Revision, under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment dated 10.07.2023 passed by Second Additional Judge to First Additional Sessions Judge, Datia (M.P.) in Case No. ST 28/2007, seeking enhancement of sentence.

2. By the impugned judgment, each of the respondents has been convicted under Section 307/149 and sentenced to undergo RI for five years with a fine of Rs.3,000/- ; under Section 324/149 and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and under Section 148 of IPC and sentenced to undergo six months' R.I. with fine of Rs.5,00/- with default stipulations. Besides, respondent No.3 - Santosh has also been convicted under

Section 25(1-B)A of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo one year's R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/- and under Section 27 of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo three years' R.I. with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulations.

3. Before adverting to the submissions advanced, it is expedient to observe that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C. in the matter of interference with the quantum of punishment is limited in nature.

4. We have carefully perused the impugned judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to impress upon this Court that regard being had to the detailed FIR lodged against the accused persons as reiterated as the case of prosecution in para 2 of the impugned judgment, medical evidence as discussed in para 8 of the impugned judgment and the nature of weapons used in the offence viz. country made pistol, axe and sharp iron bled reflecting clear intention on the part of private respondents to cause death of the complainant, the trial court has committed grave illegality while awarding punishment of five years RI though convicted under Section 307 IPC.

6. Shri Nirankari, learned Public Prosecutor, on advance notice, draws

attention of this Court to the discussion in paras 7, 10, 11, 12, 28 and 41 of the impugned judgment. The trial court has considered the entire evidence placed on record and upon critical evaluation thereof has reached the conclusion for award of sentence of five years' RI. Under such obtaining facts and circumstances, the Trial Court has not faulted while awarding the punishment of five years as well discussed in paras 58 and 59 of the impugned judgment.

7. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced and on careful perusal of the impugned judgment, we find no reason to interfere in the instant revision petition for want of any illegality or irregularity or for that matter jurisdictional error warranting interference under Section 397 Cr.P.C.

Consequently, revision being sans merits is hereby dismissed.

          (ROHIT ARYA)                               (DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
             JUDGE                                            JUDGE
     SP

SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
2023.08.25
16:45:15 +05'30'