Bharat Singh vs State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 3408 MP

                                                         1
                          IN     THE        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT GWALIOR
                                                   BEFORE
                                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                                              ON THE 27 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                                            CRIMINAL REVISION No. 924 of 2010

                         BETWEEN:-
                         BHARAT SINGH S/O BHAGWAN SINGH DHAKAD, AGED
                         ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION: KHETI RESIDENT OF
                         VILLAGE MOHABBATPURA, TEHSIL LATERI, POLICE
                         STATION MURWAS     DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA
                         PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....APPLICANT
                         (NO ONE APPEARS FOR THE APPLICANT)

                         AND
                         STATE OF M.P. TH:P.S.MURWAS, DISTRICT VIDISHA
                         (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
                         (BY SHRI PRAMOD PACHAURI- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR )

                               Th is revision coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
                         following:
                                                          ORDER

Instant criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC has been preferred by present applicant against the judgment dated 28- 10-2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha in Criminal Appeal No. 226 of 2007 confirming the judgment dated 30-10-2007 passed by JMFC, Lateri, District Vidisha in Criminal Case No.203 of 2004, whereby the applicant has been convicted under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 3/1/2023 6:19:45 PM

Prosecution case, in short, is that complainant Bankelal on the date of incident i.e. 10-07-2004 at around 10:00 in the morning was going along with his labour Bane Singh to his agricultural field on a bullock cart where the accused were standing there. Accused- applicant Bharat Singh abused the complainant in filthy languages by saying that as to why he is passing his bullock cart through his field. Thereafter, accused Bharat Singh on the exhortation of co-accused Bhagwan Singh, inflicted lathi blow on left elbow, wrist and back of complainant. Another co-accused Bheekam also inflicted lathi blow on the left leg of the complainant. Co-accused Dwarika also inflicted lathi blow on the left shoulder of complainant. Bane Singh, Daryab and Mansingh intervened in the

matter. Thereafter, the father of complainant Pooran Singh brought injured- complainant Bankelal to police station where report Ex.P2 was lodged and crime was registered. After completion of investigation and other formalities, charge sheet was filed before the Court of JMFC for offence under Sections 325, 325/34, 504, 506-B of IPC from where the case was committed to the trial Court for its trial. Learned trial Court on appreciating the prosecution evidence as well as medical evidence available before it, found charge proved against the present applicant for commission of offence under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced him as stated above. Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred a criminal appeal before the lower appellate Court and the lower appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 28-10-2010 dismissed the appeal preferred by the applicant. Being dissatisfied, the instant criminal revision has been preferred.

Challenging the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below, in the memo of revision, it is contended that the Courts below have committed an

Signature Not Verified error in passing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 3/1/2023 6:19:45 PM

N o case is made out against the applicant for commission of offence under Section 325 of IPC. The injury sustained by the complainant is simple in nature. PW 3 Man Singh, PW 4 Lalaram and PW5 Bane Singh did not support the prosecution version. Therefore, the applicant deserves acquittal by allowing the present revision.

P e r contra, learned Counsel for the State supported the impugned judgments and submitted that there is no infirmity in passing impugned judgments. Looking to nature of injuries sustained by the complainant, the trial Court has rightly convicted the applicant for offence under Section 325 of IPC. No interference is warranted. The revision deserves to be dismissed.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through impugned judgments, this Court finds that the findings given by Courts below are correct as per evidence as well as material available on record.

In the revision petition, this Court is not to re-appreciate the evidence like a Court of an appeal. This Court is only to see whether the findings given by the Courts below are perverse or against the law or whether the Courts below have misread any evidence or have not considered any material evidence. Nothing has been pointed out as to which material evidence has been misread or which material evidence has not been considered by the Courts below. The Apex Court in the case of Duli Chand Vs. Delhi Administration as reported in

(1975) 4 SCC 649 has held that the jurisdiction of the High Court in a criminal revision is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon a re-appreciation of evidence. The said judgment has been followed by the Apex Court in the case o f State of Maharashtra Vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand and Others as reported in (2004) 7 SCC 659.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 3/1/2023 6:19:45 PM

I n view of above, this Court finds that the impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Courts below are correct as per law and do not require any interference of this Court. Therefore, finding no merit in the present criminal revision, the same is hereby dismissed.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE MKB

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 3/1/2023 6:19:45 PM