Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balla @ Balram Meena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 January, 2023
Author: Sunita Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
ON THE 5th OF JANUARY, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4663 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. BALLA @ BALRAM MEENA S/O SHRI RAMHET MEENA, AGED
ABOUT 24 YEARS.
2. MUKESH MEENA S/O SHANKARLAL MEENA, AGED ABOUT 35
YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/O VILLAGE DABRSA, THANA DEHAT, DISRICT
SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
......PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI ANSHU GUPTA- ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, JILA DANDADHIKARI,
DISTRICT SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI R.K. AWASTHY - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This revision coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the following:
JUDGMENT
This criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioners under section 397 r/w
section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment dated 28/11/2022
passed by Sessions Judge Sheopur, District Sheopur in Cr.A. No.31/2022 modifying the
judgment dated 19/05/2022 passed in R.C.T No.1200576/2016 by Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Sheopur, District Sheopur, whereby the learned appellate Court convicted and
sentenced the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 447 of IPC and
sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months with fine of
Rs.500/- each and under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.3500/- each with default stipulations.
As per prosecution story, short facts of the case leading to filing of this criminal
revision are that on 01/08/2016 at about 11:30 p.m. in the night when the prosecutrix
alongwith with her children was sleeping in her house, at that time, the accused persons
came at the spot of incident and, thereafter, petitioner no.1- Balla @ Balram gagged her
mouth, on account of which, she woke up. The petitioner no.2 - Mukesh caught hold the
hand of the prosecutrix and when she screamed loudly, at that time, on hearing the noise,
her son woke up, thereafter, the accused persons fled away. Her neighbours namely,
Ramesh and Babulal came there who saw the accused persons fleeing away from the spot
of incident. Thereafter, an FIR bearing crime no.167/2016 was registered at Police Station
Dehat, District Sheopur (M.P.). On lodging of F.I.R., criminal law was triggered and set in
motion, investigation agency arrived at spot, the prosecutrix was sent for medical
examination, recorded the statements of the eyewitnesses; prepared the spot map; arrested
the accused persons and after completion of all due formalities, the charge sheet was
submitted before the trial Court having criminal jurisdiction.
The learned trial Court framed the charges against the petitioners for the offence
punishable under sections 354, 457 of IPC, which were denied by them. In order to bring
home the charges, prosecution has examined as many as Five witnesses (PW- 1 to PW-5)
and placed Ex.P-1 to Ex. P-6 documents on record. The defence of accused is of false
implication and the same defence has been put forth by them in their statement recorded
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
The learned trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the rival parties and after
appreciating the evidence available on record vide judgment dated 19/05/2022 passed in
RCT No.1200576/2016 convicted the petitioners for the offence under Section 457 of IPC
and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of
Rs.2,000/- each and under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.2,000/- each with default stipulations.
Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal bearing Cr.A.No.31/2022 before the
learned Sessions Judge Sheopur, District Sheopur. The learned lower appellate Court after
hearing learned counsel for the rival parties vide impugned judgment dated 28/11/2022
modified the sentence awarded by learned trial court and convicted the petitioners for the
offence under Section 447 of IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three moths with fine of Rs.500/- each and under Section 354 of IPC
and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of
Rs.3500/- each with default stipulations, against which, the present revision is filed.
Learned counsel for the accused/petitioners argued that the petitioners have falsely
been implicated in the case. It is further argued that there are omissions and contradictions
in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It is further submitted that prosecution has
not examined any independent witness, but only interested witnesses have been examined.
It is further argued that the petitioners are facing the criminal proceedings from the date of
incident i.e. 01/08/2016 to till date and are suffering physically and mentally for the same
and the petitioner no.1- Balla @ Balram Meean has served eight days of incarceration
whereas petitioners no.2- Mukesh Meena has already served total incarceration of
approximately 147 days. It is further argued that there are lots contradictions and
omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, but the learned trial Court has
ignored this important aspect of the matter and has convicted the petitioners vide
impugned judgment. On these grounds, it is prayed that the revision filed by the
petitioners deserves to be allowed and the judgment of conviction deserves to be set aside.
In alternative learned counsel for the petitioners submits that looking to the nature of
offence and the fact that petitioners have already served substantive part of jail sentence,
the same may be reduced to the period already undergone and the amount of fine may
reasonably be enhanced.
Learned counsel for respondent/State submits that after due appreciation of
evidence, learned Court below has found the offence proved against the petitioners, which
requires no interference. It is submitted that the revision filed by the petitioners be
dismissed.
From perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that no illegality has been
committed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sheopur in convicting the petitioners, hence, the
judgment of conviction passed by Sessions Judge requires no interference and the same is
hereby maintained.
So far as the period of sentence is concerned, looking to the limited prayer made by
the counsel for the petitioners and the nature of offence and the fact that petitioners are
facing the criminal proceedings since 2016 and have already served substantive period of
jail sentence, the purpose would be served in case the jail sentence awarded to the
petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone. However, for the offence
punishable under Section 354 of IPC, fine of Rs.3500/- which has been imposed by the
Sessions Court deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, the petitioners are directed to pay
additional fine amount of Rs.7500/- each, which comes to total fine amount of Rs.15,000/-
in addition to the fine amount already imposed by the trial Court.
In the result, this criminal revision is partly allowed. The findings of conviction are
hereby maintained with the modification to the extent that the jail sentence awarded to the
petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone subject to depositing total fine
amount of Rs.15,000/- in addition to the fine amount already imposed by the trial Court,
out of which, Rs.10,000/- shall be payable to the prosecutrix within a period of two
months, failing which, the petitioners shall suffer jail sentence awarded by the learned
Court below. The petitioners No. 2 is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and the sureties
stand discharged. The petitioner No.1 is in jail. He be released and set free, if not required
in any other case.
Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for information and necessary
compliance.
With the aforesaid modification, the instant criminal revision stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUNITA YADAV)
vpn JUDGE
VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
2023.01.11
11:00:08 +05'30'
