Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bablu Tanwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 January, 2023
Author: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 2nd OF JANUARY, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 705 of 2014
BETWEEN:-
BABLU TANWAR S/O SARJAN TANWAR,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/O: VILLAGE NADANPUR, P.S. SUTHALIYA,
DISTRICT RAJGARH (M.P.)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI NILESH DAVE - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH P.S. SUTHALIYA,
DISTRICT RAJGARH (M.P.)
.....NON APPLICANT
(BY SHRI HEMANT SHARMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This criminal revision coming on for hearing this day, the court
passed the following:
ORDER
1/ This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant
under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the impugned
judgment dated 19.6.2014 passed by the 2 nd ASJ, Biaora, District
Rajgarh, whereby the judgment dated 28.2.2013 passed by the JMFC,
Biaora passed in Criminal Case No.964/11 has been modified and the
conviction of the applicant under Section 325 of IPC has been
maintained and his jail sentence is reduced from 2 years R.I. to 1 year
R.I. with fine of Rs.300/- with usual default stipulation.
2/ The prosecution story in brief is that on 26.5.2011
complainant Rodji lodged an FIR at P.S. Suthaliya, District Rajgarh by
stating that when he was installing Bagad before his home, at that time
present applicant came there and asked him as to why he is installing
Bagad on a way. Thereafter the applicant/accused gave a blow of axe to
the complainant, due to which he sustained grievous injury on the left
side of the shoulder. The incident was witnessed by Lakhan.
Accordingly offence has been registered against the present applicant.
Dr. V.K. Verma (PW-1) conducted the MLC of the victim Rodji and
during the x-ray examination, fracture has been found in right clavicle
bone. During the investigation axe has been recovered from the
possession of the applicant.
3/ After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been
filed against the applicant/accused before the JMFC, Biaora, who has
framed charges under Section 325 of IPC against the applicant.
Applicant abjured his guilt and took a plea that he has been falsely
implicated in this matter. The trial Court after considering the
submissions advanced by both the parties and scrutinizing the entire
evidence available on record, convicted the applicant/accused under
Section 325 of IPC and sentenced him for two years R.I. with fine of
Rs.300/-. In default of payment of fine amount, one month's R.I. was
imposed.
4/ Being aggrieved by the said conviction, the applicant has
preferred Criminal Appeal before the 2 nd ASJ, Biaora, District Rajgarh.
The same was partly allowed and the judgment passed by the JMFC
was modified and jail sentence of the applicant has been reduced to one
year R.I. with fine of Rs.300/-. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid
conviction and sentence passed by both the courts below, the applicant
has preferred the present Criminal Revision before this Court.
5/ The applicant has preferred the present revision on various
grounds, but during the course of the argument learned counsel for the
applicant submitted that applicant does not want to press this criminal
revision on merit and he is not assailing the conviction part of the
judgment, but he has confined his argument only to the extent of
quantum of sentence part. His sole prayer is that the imprisonment of
the applicant be reduced to the period already undergone, as the
applicant has suffered some period of jail sentence. During the
pendency of this criminal revision, the applicant was regularly marking
his presence before this Court. He is a poor person and not having any
criminal background. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant's jail
sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
6/ Per contra, learned GA for respondent/State opposed the
revision and prayed for its rejection by submitting that both the courts
below have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant and the
sentence in question is sufficient.
7/ Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
record.
8/ In view of the submissions made by counsel for the
applicant, although the conviction has not been challenged by the
applicant but from perusal of the evidence available on record also
justified the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court and the
first appellate court.
9/ So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the
submission made by learned counsel for the applicants appears to be
just and proper. The applicant has remained in custody since 19.6.2014
to 31.7.2014. At the time of incident applicant was 27 years old young
person. He is not having any criminal background and he is facing the
trial since 2011, therefore, it would be appropriate to reduce the jail
sentence awarded to him.
10/ Considering the aforesaid, I deem it proper to reduce the
jail sentence of the applicant under Section 325 of IPC from one year
R.I. to the period already undergone. The fine amount of Rs.300/-
imposed by both the courts below is hereby affirmed.
11/ Consequently the present Criminal Revision is partly
allowed to the extent as indicated above. The applicant is on bail, his
bail bond and surety bond stand discharged.
12/ The order regarding disposal of the property as pronounced
by the trial Court is also affirmed.
13/ Let a copy of this order along with the record of the trial
Court and the first appellate court be sent back to the concerned court
for necessary action.
C.C. as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Trilok/-
Digitally signed by TRILOK SINGH
SAVNER
Date: 2023.01.04 11:05:52 +05'30'
