Amarsingh Bhil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 310 MP

                                                       1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                   AT I N D O R E
                                                BEFORE
           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR

                            ON THE 5th OF JANUARY, 2023

                      CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1151 of 2022

BETWEEN:-
AMARSINGH BHIL S/O GUJARIYA, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOR
R/O MALWAI (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                                     .....PETITIONER
(SHRI VINOD THAKUR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)


AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH
POLICE STATION ALIRAJPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
                                                                                   .....RESPONDENT
( SHRI S. S. THAKUR, GOVT. ADVOCATE APPEARING ON BEHALF OF
ADVOCATE GENERAL)
...................................................................................................................

         This revision coming on for orders this day, the court passed
the following:

                                                 ORDER

1] This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment dated 16.3.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Alirajpur, District-Alirajpur (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.04/2022 thereby the learned Judge has affirmed the judgment dated 17.2.2022 passed in Criminal Case No.308/2015 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Alirajpur, District-Alirajpur (M.P.), whereby the petitioner was found guilty for offence punishable under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.500/-. 2] Brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 15.3.2015, complainant/injured Puniya Bhil (P.W.2) was going to his sister's house at Gram-Gadhat at that time, the petitioner came armed with bow and arrow and assaulted him with the arrow which hit him on the lower side of his waist. The First Information Report regarding the incident was lodged by him at the police station after two days i.e. on 17.3.2015 and after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Alirajpur, who after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, convicted the petitioner and sentenced him as mentioned herein above, and which has been maintained by the District Appellate Court. 3] Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the courts below have in erred in not considering the fact that the FIR in the present case was lodged after two days as the incident is of 15.3.2015 whereas the FIR was lodged on 17.3.2015. It is also submitted that

even according to P.w.7/ Dr.N.S.Mori, he has not opined that if the injury suffered by the complainant can be caused by an arrow as the arrow with which the complainant was assaulted has not been seized by the Police and the arrow which has been seized from the petitioner was not to the doctor for his opinion if the injury suffered by the complainant can be caused by such arrow. Counsel has further submitted that there is no other criminal case registered against the petitioner and the sentence is on higher side. It is further submitted that the FIR has been lodged after two days time and the complainant was not even admitted in the hospital as apparently he has not suffered any serious injuries and had gone alone to the police station to lodge the FIR after the incident. It is also submitted that the petitioner has already undergone one month and ten days of incarceration, hence, the jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner.

4] Counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no error has been committed by the courts below in convicting the petitioner and as such no interference is called for.

5] Heard the counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 6] On due consideration of the rival submissions, and on perusal of the record including the depositions of the complainant-P.w./2 Puniya, as also P.w./7 Dr.N.S.Mori, it is apparent that the injury was not serious in nature and the Police has also not seized the arrow with

which the injured was assaulted by the petitioner and there is no query report also, and considering the fact that the petitioner has already undergone one month and ten days of incarceration, although this Court uphold the conviction of the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC, however the custodial sentence of the petitioner can be reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine amount is further enhanced to Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) which shall be deposited before the concerned trial Court within a period of further two months time from the date of release of the petitioner. On failure to do so, the petitioner shall undergo the remaining sentence as directed by the Courts District Appellate Court.

7] In the result, the revision petition stands partly allowed to the extent herein above indicated. The petitioner is on bail; his bail bond and surety bond are hereby discharged.

8] A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for compliance.

Certified copy, as per rules.

( SUBHODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE

moni Digitally signed by MONI RAJU DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, ou=JUDICIAL, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya

MONI RAJU Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=6fb601f03d4083a3289219d85392bac3bde1be8a53 bd80aeba7af5a5244844c1, pseudonym=85E21E23646B47526A49E99D9182D0AE8ABD6 2D1, serialNumber=3BFD07BEC0C790E4AEA8CB122D629549D106 7813B2AE8FB016F1BF08EE881126, cn=MONI RAJU Date: 2023.01.11 10:29:32 +05'30'