Jagdish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 14083 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. 840 of 2014

                         BETWEEN:-
                         JAGDISH S/O SHRI CHHITARLAL SONDHYA, AGED
                         ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE GRAM
                         SANOTA, THANA SUTHALIYA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....PETITIONER
                         (SHRI HIMANSHU JOSHI- ADVOCATE)

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

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENT
                         (SHRI SURENDRA GUPTA - 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 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.07.2014 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, District-Rajgarh in Criminal Appeal No.33/2013 whereby learned Sessions Judge partly allowed appeal by affirming the conviction for offence under Section 325 of IPC, 1860 and reduced the sentenced to 01 year R.I and with fine amount of Rs.300/- with usual default stipulations however, acquitted the appellant from under Section 323 of the IPC, passed in judgment dated 14.01.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Signature Not Verified Signed by: AKANKSHA LAHORIYA Signing time: 9/1/2023 6:49:03 PM

Magistrate First Class in Criminal Case No.1611/2011.

2. The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision on several grounds but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press this revision on merit and nor assailed the finding part of judgment. He confined his argument on the point of sentence only and prays that since the petitioner has already undergone about 20 days of jail incarceration, therefore his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. It is also submitted that the petitioner has already deposited the fine amount so awarded by the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner deserve some leniency as he has 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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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. Signature Not Verified Signed by: AKANKSHA LAHORIYA Signing time: 9/1/2023 6:49:03 PM

6. So far as the sentence of the petitioner is concerned, after the lapse of almost 12 years, the submissions have been made by the petitioner regarding enhancement fine appear to be proper. The petitioner has 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 petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioner is hereby reduced to the sentence already undergone by increasing the fine amount from Rs.300/- to Rs.10,000/- under Section 325 of IPC to be paid by the petitioner within a period of one month from today. Out of the fine amount so deposited by the petitioner Rs.5,000/- be paid to Injured- Kumersingh Saundhya 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 petitioner shall be discharged after deposit of the fine amount. If the petitioner fail to deposit the fine amount, he 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.

(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE akanksha

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