Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhagirath vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 December, 2023
Author: Prakash Chandra Gupta
Bench: Prakash Chandra Gupta
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
ON THE 20 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 869 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
BHAGIRATH S/O AMBARAM, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
GANGAJALKHEDA TEH. MAHIDPUR UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI JITENDRA SHARMA, ADVOCATE.)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THR.PS. MAHIDPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(MS. BHAGYASHREE GUPTA, GOVT. ADVOCATE)
T h is revision coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
1. This criminal revision u/s 397 r/w 401 of the Code Of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the petitioner/ accused being aggrieved
by the judgment dated 29/01/2020 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions
Judge, Mahidpur, Distt.- Ujjain, in Criminal Appeal No. 104/2019, whereby, the
learned Additional Sessions Judge has partly allowed the appeal and reduced
the sentence of the applicant to R.I. of 6 months and affirmed the fine amount,
arising out of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 10/12/2019 passed
JMFC, Mahidpur, Ujjain in Criminal case no.966/ 2014, whereby the learned
magistrate had convicted the petitioner/ accused u/s 324 of IPC and sentenced
to undergo R.I. of 1 year and fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default stipulation.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 17/08/2014 the petitioner/ accused
Bhagirath had verbally abused and given blow to the complainant Gendalal by
means of knife and had voluntarily caused hurt to him.
3. The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision on several grounds
but during the course of argument, learned counsel for petitioner did not press
this revision on merit and does not assail the finding part of the judgment. He
confines his argument on the point of sentence only and prays that the petitioner
have already undergone 113 days in incarceration. It is further submitted that the
petitioner deserves some leniency as he already suffered the ordeal of trial since
2014. Therefore, it is prayed that this petition be partly allowed and the sentence
awarded upon the petitioner be reduced to the period he has already undergone
by enhancing the fine amount.
4. Learned counsel for the state on the other hand supports the impugned
judgment and prayed for dismissal of this petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be just and
proper. Hence, finding force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, and the fact that the petitioner suffered the ordeal of criminal
case since 2014. After lapse of almost more than 9 years, no purpose would be
served in sending the petitioner to jail after such a long period.
6. Therefore, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction is maintained.
The jail sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by
him and the fine amount of petitioner/ accused Bhagirath is enhanced to
Rs.5,000/- which shall be paid to the complainant/ injured Gendalal. In case if
the petitioner fail to deposit the fine amount within 2 months, from the date of
receiving of copy of this order, the default stipulation shall be of 2 months of
simple imprisonment. If any fine amount already paid, the same shall be
adjusted with the aforesaid fine amount. The bail bonds of the petitioner shall be
discharged after deposit of the fine amount before the learned trial court.
7. Registry is directed to supply copy of this order to the petitioner
through their counsel free of cost. A copy of this order alongwith the records
be sent to the concerned trial court for necessary compliance.
8. Accordingly, this petition is disposed off.
(PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
JUDGE
ajit
