Dhansingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 47 MP

                                                             1
                            IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT INDORE
                                                     BEFORE
                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                                ON THE 2 nd OF JANUARY, 2023
                                            CRIMINAL REVISION No. 588 of 2014

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    DHANSINGH S/O SHRILAL, AGED ABOUT 25
                                 YE A R S , BALAPURA P.S. KALIPITH (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           2.    AMARLAL S/O GOPILAL, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
                                 BHAWANIPURA, P.S. KALIPITH, DISTT.-RAJGARH
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....PETITIONERS
                           (BY SHRI RAVINDRA SINGH PARMAR - ADVOCATE)

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

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENT
                           (BY SHRI MUKESH SHARMA - G.A)

                                 Th is revision coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                              ORDER

The present criminal revision is filed by the petitioners under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C, against the judgment passed by 2nd ASJ, Biaora District- Rajgarh in Criminal Appeal No.90/2012 passed on 23/5/2014 whereby affirming the sentence passed in the judgment by JMFC, Biora District

- Rajgarh in Criminal Case No. 410/05 dated 3/2/2012. The petitioners have been convicted and sentenced under Section 325/34 of IPC for 1 year each R.I and fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine 3- 3 months R.I. Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 03-01-2023 18:14:46

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the incident had taken place in the year 2005. The petitioners were on bail during the trial and their jail sentence was also suspended during the appeal and criminal revision. The petitioners have already undergone jail sentence of about 16 days. No purpose would be served sending the petitioners to jail at this stage. He further submits that instead of jail sentence the fine amount may be increased and the petitioners shall maintain good relations with the complainant.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the incident had taken place in the year 2005 and the petitioners conviction and sentence was suspended, I am of the view that no purpose would be served

by sending the petitioners to jail at this stage. The conviction is maintained and jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. The fine amount is increased to Rs. 5000/- each failing which the petitioners shall undergo R.I for 1 month.. The fine amount shall be deposited with the Trial Court within a period of 2 months from the date of release of the petitioners. The said amount shall be paid to the victim Prabhulal by the Trial Court.

With the aforesaid, the Revision Petition is partly allowed and disposed off.

The bail bonds stand discharged, after depositing of fine amount.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE Pramod

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 03-01-2023 18:14:46