Parvatsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 444 MP

                                                           1
                            IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT INDORE
                                                      BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                                              ON THE 9 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                                           CRIMINAL REVISION No. 737 of 2014

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    PARVATSINGH S/O HEERALAL LODHA, AGED
                                 ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
                                 VILLAGE BHANVAS, P.S. MALAWAR (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           2.    MANGILAL S/O KHUSHILAL LODHA, AGED
                                 ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
                                 GRAM BHWAS,POLICE SATION MALAWAR, DIST-
                                 RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    HEERALAL S/O RODJI LODHA, AGED ABOUT 55
                                 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O GRAM
                                 BHWAS, POLICE STATION MALAWAR, DISTT-
                                 RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    KARANSINGH S/O MANGILAL LODHA, AGED
                                 ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
                                 GRAM BHAWAS ,POLICE STATION MALAWAR,
                                 DIST- RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....APPLICANTS
                           (BY SHRI DHARMENDRA KEHARWAR - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                           OFFICER THRU. P.S. MALAWAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENT
                           ( BY SHRI KAPIL MAHANT - PANEL LAWYER)


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

Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR DATT JOSHI Signing time: 10-01-2023 11:13:52

The applicants have preferred this criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.€Â) being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.6.2014 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Biaora, District Rajgadh in Criminal Appeal No.203/2013 whereby the judgment dated 21.6.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Biaora, District Rajgadh in Criminal Case No. 254/2010 has been upheld and applicants have been convicted under Section 323/34 ( 3 counts) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC€Â) and sentenced to undergo 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment (each count) with fine of Rs.200/- each and under section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced to 2-2 years

RI with fine of Rs. 200-200/-with usual default stipulation.

The prosecution story in brief is that on 19/2/2010 at about 7 pm while complainant Kantibai alongwith his husband Dhulji, son in law Badrilal, father in law Motilal and mother in law Gyarsibai were doing work in their agricultural field, at that time applicants/accused Parwatsingh, Heeralal, Karansingh came there armed with wooden stick and Farsi and have started abusing them in a filthy language, at that time applicant/accused Mangilal also came there and said that मारो सालो को. Thereafter applicant Parwatsingh gave a blow of Farsi over husband of complainant Dhulji, Karansingh also gave a blow of Farsi on hand of her husband, other accused persons also committed maar peet with her father in law by using wooden stick. When complainant Kantibai and her son in law Badrilal tried to intervene,the accused persons committed maar peet with her son in law and also abused them in a filthy language and threatened that when they will come on their land they will kill them. Complainant lodged FIR at police station Malawar. Doctor Tarun Kumar

Signature Not Verified Gupta conducted MLC of all victim persons. During investigation, wooden Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR DATT JOSHI Signing time: 10-01-2023 11:13:52

stick and Farsi have been recovered from possession of accused persons.

After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the applicants / accused before the JMFC, Biaora, who has framed the charges. The trial Court after considering the submissions advanced by both the parties and scrutinizing the entire evidence available on record convicted the applicants / accused under Section 323/34 ( 3 counts) of IPC) and sentenced to undergo 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment (each count) with fine of Rs.200/- and under section 325/34 of IPC sentenced to 2-2 years RI with fine of Rs. 200- 200/-with usual default stipulation vide judgement dated 21.6.2013. Being aggrieved by the said conviction, the applicants have preferred Criminal Appeal before the 2nd ASJ Biaora. The same was upheld and appeal was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below, the applicants have preferred present criminal revision before this Court.

The applicants have preferred the present revision on several grounds but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants do not want to press this criminal revision on merits and he is not assailing the conviction part of the judgment but he confined his argument only to the extent of quantum of sentence part. His only prayer is that imprisonment of the applicants be reduced to the period already undergone as the applicants have suffered 53 days in custody during the trial as well as during pendency of

the case. They are regularly marking their presence before the Court. They are poor persons and are not having any criminal background. Therefore, their sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone.

Learned counsel for the respondent / State opposes the revision and prays for its rejection by submitting that the trial court as well as first appellate Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR DATT JOSHI Signing time: 10-01-2023 11:13:52

court have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicants 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 counsel for applicants, although the conviction has not been challenged, but 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 sentence is concerned, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants appears to be just and proper. The applicants remained in custody since 27.6.2014 to 20.8.2014 ( 53 days) during trial as well as during pendency of the appeal. They are not having any criminal background. They are facing trial since 2010. Therefore, it would be appropriate to reduce the jail sentence awarded to them.

Considering the aforesaid, I deem it proper to reduce the jail sentence of applicants under Section 323/34 (3 counts) of IPC from 6 months to the period already undergone. Their jail sentence under section 325/34 of IPC is also reduced from 2 years (each) to the period already undergone.The fine amount imposed by both the Courts below is hereby affirmed.

Consequently, the present criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent as indicated above. The applicants are on bail. Their bail bond and surety bond stand discharged.

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

Let a copy of this judgment along with record of both the Courts below be sent back to the concerned Courts for necessary compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR DATT JOSHI Signing time: 10-01-2023 11:13:52

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE BDJ

Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR DATT JOSHI Signing time: 10-01-2023 11:13:52