Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dashrath vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 December, 2023
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 12 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1160 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
DASHRATH S/O MUNSHI JAMRE, AGED 72 YEARS,
VILLAGE ROOPKHEDI, TEH. THIKARI, DISTT. BARWANI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI KAILASH CHANDRA YADAV - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THRU.P.S.
THIKARI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BARWANI, DISTRICT
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( BY SHRI AMIT RAWAL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Th is revision coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioner Dashrath has been brought before this court in custody as per
PUD sent by CJM Badwani dated 12.12.2023. Petitioner has been taken into
custody in compliance of arrest warrant issued on 6.11.2023. The concerned
court below also made a comment that accused appears to be unable for
walking,understanding and speaking and he may be paralytic.
Instead of hearing on I.A. No. 18568/2023 which is an application under
section 397(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf
of accused/petitioner Dashrath, matter has been heard finally.
1 / The petitioner/accused has preferred this revision petition under
Section 397 & 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "Cr.P.C.") against
the impugned judgment dated 1.9.2017 passed by the learned 2n ASJ, Barwani
in Criminal Appeal No. 47/2015, whereby the judgment dated 29.4.2015 passed
by the learned CJM Anjad in Criminal Case No. 183/2012 has been upheld, by
which the petitioner has been convicted for offence punishable under Section
325 of Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") and sentenced to undergo 1 year's
R.I. with fine of Rs.250/- with usual default stipulation.
2 / Brief facts of the case are that on 2.4.2012 complainant Kamal
alongwith victims Roopsingh, Naharsingh and Hukum were sitting infront of
the shop of Jhabar cycle, at that time accused/ petitioner came there and told
Roopsingh that some person has taken ballast (gitti) lying nearby the school,
and asked some gitti for his use also. On this, Roopsingh replied that after
completion of work if gitti remains, he may take it. Then the petitioner started
abusing in a filthy language and attacked upon him by means of stick due to
which Roop singh sustained injury over his mouth and neck. The petitioner also
threatened him for life. Kamal lodged an FIR at police station Thikari District
Barwani. Dr. Ranjeet Singh (PW-8) had conducted the MLC of victim
Roopsingh and Dr. D. Mahajan (PW-9) examined the x-ray plate and opined
that fracture has been found in the upper jaw of victim.
3 / After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed
before the JMFC Anjad who framed the charges under Section 294, 325 and
506 Part II of IPC. The petitioner/accused abjured his guilt and pleaded
complete innocence. The trial Court after hearing both the parties and
scrutinizing the entire evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the
petitioner/accused as mentioned hereinabove. Thereafter, the petitioner has
preferred Criminal Appeal, but the same was also dismissed by upholding the
judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Hence, this
present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.
4/ 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. He did not assail the finding part of the judgment.
He has confined his arguments on the quantum of sentence only. His sole
prayer is that the imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to the period
already undergone, as the petitioner has already suffered more than one month
imprisonment and he is facing trial since 2012. During the trial as well as during
pendency of the criminal appeal and this revision, he has cooperated. It is
further contended that the petitioner is a poor person. He has no criminal past.
Therefore, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone.
5 / Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the
criminal revision and prayed for its dismissal by submitting that trial Court has
rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner.
6/ Learned counsel for both the parties heard at length and perused the
record.
7 / In view of the above submissions, although the conviction has not
b e e n challenged, perusal of the evidence also justified the judgment of
conviction passed by the trial Court as well as the first appellate court.
8/ So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the submission made
b y learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be just and proper. The
petitioner has remained in jail from 1.9.2017 to 19.9.2017 and from 7.12.2023 to
12.12.2023. He is facing trial since 2012. Now petitioner is aged about 81
years and he appears to be physically handicapped as per the report submitted
by ACJM Barwani and he is not having any criminal past. Therefore, it would
b e appropriate to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the
petitioner.
9/ Having regard to the aforesaid, this criminal revision is partly allowed
by maintaining the conviction, but reducing the sentence to the period already
undergone by the petitioner. The fine amount imposed upon the petitioner by
Court below is hereby affirmed. Petitioner is in custody. He be released
forthwith if not required in any other case.
10/ The order regarding disposal of the property, as pronounced by the
trial Court, is also affirmed.
11/ Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment along with the
record of the trial Court as well as record of the first appellate court, to the
concerned trial Court for its necessary compliance.
C.C. as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
BDJ
