Rajaram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 14066 MP

                                                           1
                          IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT INDORE
                                                   BEFORE
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
                                             ON THE 28 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                                         CRIMINAL REVISION No. 632 of 2014

                         BETWEEN:-
                         1.    RAJARAM S/O PUNAMCHAND BANJARA, AGED
                               ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOURER
                               VILLAGE BHILKHEDA P.S. KALAPIPAL (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                         2.    MADHOSINGH S/O POONAMCHAND, AGED
                               ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR GRAM-
                               BHILKHEDA, P.S.-KALAPIPAL, DISTT-SHAJAPUR
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....PETITIONER
                         (SHRI YOGESH PUROHIT- ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                         OFFICER THRU. P.S. KALAPIPAL (SHAJAPUR)

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENT
                         (SHRI GAURAV RAWAT - GOVT. ADVOCATE)

                               Th is revision coming on for hearing 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 06.06.2014 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, District-Shajapur in Criminal Appeal No.82/2014, whereby learned Sessions Judge partly allowed appeal by affirming the conviction for offence under Sections 325 and 323/34 of IPC, Signature Not Verified Signed by: AKANKSHA LAHORIYA Signing time: 9/1/2023 6:49:03 PM

1860 while reduced the sentenced to 03-03 months R.I. and 15-15 days R.I., respectively and maintained the fine amount to Rs.500-500/- and Rs.200/- Rs.200/- respectively with usual default stipulations passed in the judgment dated 07.02.2014 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in Criminal Case No.1403/2011.

2 . T h e petitioners have preferred this criminal revision on several grounds but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners d id not press this revision on merit and nor assailed the finding part of judgment. They confine their argument on the point of sentence only and prays that since the petitioners have already undergone about 13 days of jail

incarceration, therefore 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: AKANKSHA LAHORIYA Signing time: 9/1/2023 6:49:03 PM

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 is concerned, after the lapse of 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 are hereby reduced to the sentence already undergone by increasing the fine amount from Rs.500/- to Rs.10,000/- under Section 325 of IPC and Rs.200 to Rs.1000/- under Section 323 of IPC to be paid by each of the petitioners within a period of two months from today. Out of the fine amount so deposited by the petitioners, Rs.10,000/- be paid to Injured-Bagwati Bai (P.W.3) and Rs.1000/- be paid to injured-Dayaram (P.W.2) 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

2 months 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.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AKANKSHA LAHORIYA Signing time: 9/1/2023 6:49:03 PM

(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE akanksha

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AKANKSHA LAHORIYA Signing time: 9/1/2023 6:49:03 PM