Kishore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 2057 MP

                                                               1
                            IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT INDORE
                                                        BEFORE
                                            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                                                ON THE 6 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                                            CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1359 of 2014

                           BETWEEN:-
                           KISHORE S/O SHRI BHARAT BHILALA, AGED ABOUT 50
                           Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: LABOUR, R/O: VILLAGE
                           AMBADA, TEH. KUKSHI, DIST. DHAR (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                              .....APPLICANT
                           (BY SHRI MITESH PATIDAR - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                      DISTRICT
                           MAGISTRATE, DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....RESPONDENT
                           (BY SHRI VISHAL PANWAR - PANEL LAWYER)

                                 This revision coming on for direction this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                                ORDER

The applicant has preferred this Criminal Revision under Section 397

read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short 'Cr.P.C.') being aggrieved by the impugned order of conviction and sentence dated 15.10.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kukshi, Dhar in Criminal Appeal No.168/2014, whereby the judgment dated 27.05.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kukshi in Criminal Case No.492/2012 has been modified and applicant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 323 and 325 of IPC and sentenced with fine of Rs.1,000/- and six months R.I.

Signature Not Verified with fine of Rs.2,500/- respectively with usual default stimulation. Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 07-02-2023 10:47:28

The prosecution story in brief is that on 08.05.2012 applicant removed the stones from the boundary of the agriculture field of complainant Radheshyam and cut down some trees. When at about 08:00 PM, complainant Radheshyam went to the house of the applicant then present applicant alongwith his wife Baydabai and daughter Rekhabai threatened and abused him. Present applicant also abused him in filthy language and thereafter, during the scuffle applicant Kishore hit the complainant Radheshyam by means of laathi, due to which complainant sustained injuries on the finger of his right hand and back also. All the accused persons have also threatened the complainant that if in future they will raise any dispute regarding the boundary of the land, they will

kill him. During the investigation, a wooden stick has been recovered from the possession of the present applicant.

After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the present applicant and other accused persons before the JMFC, Kukshi, who has framed charged under Sections 294, 323/34, 325/34 and 506 part II of IPC against the applicant and other accused persons. They have abjured their guilt and took a plea that they have been falsely implicated in the instant case. The trial Court after considering the submissions advanced by both the parties and scrutinizing entire evidence available on record, convicted the present applicant Kishore and other accused persons under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 of IPC and sentenced them 6 months R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- and 2 years R.I. with fine of Rs.700/- respectively in default of paying the fine amount further 15 days R.I. was imposed.

Being aggrieved by the said conviction, the present applicant and other accused persons have preferred a Criminal Appeal before the Additional Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 07-02-2023 10:47:28

Sessions Judge, Kukshi. The same was partly allowed and accused Baydabai and Rekhabai have been acquitted from all the charges and the conviction of the present applicant Kishore under Sections 323 and 325 upheld by modifying the sentenced as mentioned herein above. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the applicant has preferred this Criminal Revision before this Court.

The applicant has preferred the present Revision on several grounds, but during the course of the argument, learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant does not want to press this Criminal Revision on merit and is not assailing the conviction and sentence part of the judgment. He has confined his argument only to the extent of quantum of the sentence and his sole prayer is that the imprisonment of the applicant be reduced to the period already undergone by him, as the applicant has already suffered jail incarceration for more than one month and he is facing trial for last 10 years. Applicant is a 60 years old poor person and is not having any criminal background. Therefore, his jail sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the revision and prays for its rejection by submitting that both the Courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant and the sentence in question is sufficient.

Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant,

although the conviction has not been challenged, but a bare perusal of the evidence available on record, also justifies the judgment of conviction passed by both the Courts below.

So far as the quantum of jail sentence is concerned, the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant appears to be just and proper. The present applicant was remained in custody for a period of more than one month Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 07-02-2023 10:47:28

and he has suffered jail incarceration from 17.10.2014 to 21.11.2014. At the time of incident present applicant was an old man of 50 years of age. Now he has turned 60. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to reduce the jail sentence to the period already undergone by the applicant.

Considering the aforesaid, the revision is partly allowed by maintaining the conviction of the applicant, but reducing his jail sentence to the period already undergone by him. The fine amount imposed upon the applicant by both the Courts below is hereby affirmed. Applicant Kishore is on bail, his surety and bail bonds stands discharged.

The order regarding disposal of the property as pronounced by the trial Court is also affirmed.

Let a copy of this order alongwith record of the both the Courts below be sent back to the concerned Courts for information and necessary compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Anushree

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 07-02-2023 10:47:28