Madhya Pradesh High Court
Munnalal Sahu vs Smt.Parvati on 27 February, 2023
Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
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. 1006 of 2010
BETWEEN:-
1. MUNNALAL SAHU S/O KISHANLAL SAHU, AGED
ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE
RESIDENT OF VILL.BHONTI, TEH. PICHHORE
DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. BHAIYALAL S/O SHRI HARDAS SAHU, AGED
ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SHOPKEEPER
R/O VILL. BHONTI, TAH: PICHHORE , DISTRICT
SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SMT. SUSHILA W/O SHRI MUNNALAL, AGED
ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WORK
R/O VILL. BHONTI, TAH: PICHHORE, DISTRICT
SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANTS
(NO ONE APPEARS FOR THE APPLICANTS )
AND
SMT.PARVATI W/O SURESH SAHU, AGED ABOUT 40
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE VILL.BHONTI
TEH.PICHHORE, DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI S. K. MISHRA- ADVOCATE)
This revision coming on for HEARING this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Instant criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of
CrPC has been preferred by the applicants against the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 5th January, 2010 passed by the Court of JMFC,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 3/1/2023
6:19:45 PM
Pichhore in Criminal Case No. 366 of 2007 convicting the each of applicants
for offence under Section 323/34 of IPC with fine of Rs.800/- with default
stipulation, against which the applicants preferred a Criminal Appeal before the
lower Appellate Court and the lower appellate Court vide judgment dated 14-09-
2010 passed in Criminal Case No.27 of 2010 confirmed the judgment dated
05th January, 2010 passed by the trial Court.
In brief, the prosecution case, is that on 01-12-2006 at around 09:30 am,
complainant Smt. Parvati Bai was standing in front of her house situated at
village Bhonti. Due to previous enmity, all the accused persons - applicants
came there and abused her in filthy languages and thereafter they entered in her
house and started beating her by means of kicks and fists. On hearing her hue
and cry, Dharmendra and Suman reached the spot. On seeing them, all the
accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence by giving a threat that
if the complainant lodges a report, then she should be killed. Thereafter, the
complainant narrated the incident to her husband. She along with her husband
went to police station for lodging the report but the police did not take any step
in this regard. Thereafter, a private complaint for offence under Sections 452,
323, 294, 506-B/34 of IPC was filed before the competent Court and the lower
Court took cognizance under Sections 504, 323/34 of IPC and registered a
criminal case against the accused. The learned trial Court after due appreciation
of prosecution evidence on record as well as statement of complainant,
convicted the present applicants for the offence as mentioned above. Being
dissatisfied, the applicants preferred a criminal appeal before the lower appellate
Court and the lower appellate Court vide judgment dated 14th September, 2010
confirmed the judgment dated 05-01-2010 passed by the trial Court.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 3/1/2023
6:19:45 PM
This revision is pending since 2010. Today no body appears for the
applicants. In the memo of this revision, it is contended on behalf of the
applicants that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is bad in law,
arbitrary and against the settled principle of law. There are material
contradictions and omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses.
Although PW1 is an interested witness, but the lower Court did not take into
consideration evidence of PW1 and has wrongly convicted the applicants and
by not giving the benefit of probation, sentenced them with fine of Rs.800/-
Therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the lower Court deserves to be
set aside and the applicants deserve acquittal.
On the other hand, Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant
submits that the lower Court has rightly convicted the applicants for offence
under Section 323/34 of IPC and the same has been affirmed by the lower
appellate Court. 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
Signature Not Verified
(1975) 4 SCC 649 has held that the jurisdiction of the High Court in a criminal
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 3/1/2023
6:19:45 PM
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.
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
