Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 December, 2023
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 619 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
BALU S/O CHAGAN BHATERA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOUR HARINAGAR THANA
KAKANVANI DISTT JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ASHISH GUPTA, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH P.S. KAKANVANI DISTT JHABUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI H.S. RATHORE, GA FOR STATE)
.....................................................................................................................................
Heard on :07.12.2023
Delivered on :11.12.2023
This revision petition was heard and the Court pronounced the 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 petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.01.2019 passed
b y the Additional Sessions Judge, District-Jhabua in Criminal Appeal
No.193/2016, whereby learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal of the
petitioner by affirming the conviction and sentence passed in the judgment
dated 08.10.2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in Criminal Case
No.233/2015 whereby the petitioner haS been convicted and sentenced under
Sections for offence under Sections 324 of IPC and sentenced to 1 year R.I.
with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulations.
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
confine his argument on the point of sentence only and prays that since the
petitioner has already undergone about 15 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 2015 i.e. for a
period of 08 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
b y 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 petitioner is concerned, after the lapse of
almost 08 years, the submissions have been made by the petitioner regarding
enhancement fine appear to be proper. The petitioners have suffered the ordeal
of criminal case since 2015, 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.100/- to Rs.10000/- under section 324 of
IPC to be paid by each of the petitioner within a period of two months from
today.
8. The fine amount, if already deposited shall be adjusted.
9. 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 02-02
months of simple imprisonment in default.
1 0 . A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for
necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
amit
