Gopalchand Jain vs State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 462 MP

                                1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                  AT GWALIOR
                            BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                 ON THE 9th OF JANUARY, 2023

             CRIMINAL REVISION NO.447 OF 2007

     BETWEEN:-

     GOPALCHAND JAIN, S/O LAKHMI CHAND
     JAIN, AGED 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
     BUSINESS, R/O DAHI MANDI, SARAFA
     BAZAR LASHKAR, GWALIOR (MADHYA
     PRADESH)


                                               ........PETITIONER
     (BY SHRI A. R. SHIVHARE - ADVOCATE)

     AND
1.   STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
     POLICE STATION- GWALIOR, DISTRICT-
     GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.   DHANESH KUMAR S/O JAYCHAND LAL
     JAIN , AGED 41 YEARS, R/O DAHI MANDI
     CHELAJI KA AKHADA, LASHKAR,
     GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.   NARESH KUMAR S/O JAYCHAND LAL
     JAIN , AGED 46 YEARS, R/O DAHI MANDI
     CHELAJI KA AKHADA, LASHKAR,
     GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.   ABHINANDAN, S/O JAYCHAND LAL JAIN,
     AGED 35 YEARS, R/O DAHI MANDI
     CHELAJI KA AKHADA, LASHKAR,
     GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                            ........RESPONDENTS

     (SHRI PRAMOD PACHAURI - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THE STATE
                                            2

AND SHRI ARUN PATERIYA- ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 2 TO 4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       This revision coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the
following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                      ORDER

This revision is pending since 2007. This revision has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the judgment of acquittal of respondents No.2 to 4 dated 20/03/2007 passed by 6 th Additional Sessions Judge, District- Gwalior (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.121/2006, setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 26/09/2006 passed in Criminal Case No.2162/2004 by JMFC, District- Gwalior (M.P.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Appellate Court erred in acquitting the respondents because in the incident teeth/tooth of the petitioner were broken by the respondents. X-ray report supports the version of the petitioner/complainant. Further the other witnesses having material bearing in the present case supported the version of the complainant, therefore, learned trial Court rightly convicted the respondents but the learned Appellate Court overlooked the evidence available on record and recorded the acquittal in favour of the respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State submitted that learned trial Court has rightly convicted the respondents, therefore, the judgment of acquittal passed by the Appellate Court deserves quashment.

Learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4 submits that the Appellate Court did not err in acquitting the respondents No.2 to 4. Learned Appellate Court after proper evaluation of evidence came on

record, rightly set-aside the judgment of conviction of the respondents passed by the trial Court which needs no interference but he fairly submits that since incident is of the year 2002, therefore, if this Court deems fit to enhance the fine amount rather then restoring the conviction of the respondents No.2 to 4, they are ready to pay the same to the complainant.

Since the incident is of the year 2002 and respondents No.2 to 4 have been acquitted by the Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 20/03/2007 and since then sufficient has lapsed, therefore, no purpose would be served if the respondents are again sent to jail.

In view of the above, looking to the evidence available on record this Court deems it appropriate to sentence the respondents only to the extent of enhancement of fine rather than restoring the conviction recorded by the trial Court. Therefore, the fine amount of Rs.400/- imposed by the trial Court is enhanced to Rs.2,000/- each. Accordingly, fine amount is enhanced from Rs.400/- to Rs.2,000/- each which shall be deposited by respondents No.2 to 4 within a period of one month from today, failing which the respondents No.2 to 4 will have to suffer the complete sentence as awarded by the trial Court. The amount of fine so deposited by the respondents No.2 to 4 be given to the petitioner/complainant on due verification of identity of the complainant.

In view of the above, this revision is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE

rahulDigitally signed by RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=eac942476567cd1b39b3da46068403462fdf82ab676d0cde4dee473 fe77953f5, pseudonym=68E0B84BAE73376CD071289B3D9FE728CE00D487, serialNumber=0275C4F803F94C47998BE5C534E21BDED910FD4AB9D159B5 5575E814D05B2EED, cn=RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR Date: 2023.01.11 17:27:01 +05'30'