Jitu@Jitendra (As Oer C.O. Dt. ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 10971 MP

                                                             1
                           IN    THE        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT INDORE
                                                       BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                                                  ON THE 17 th OF JULY, 2023
                                             CRIMINAL REVISION No. 60 of 2016

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.    JITU@JITENDRA (AS OER C.O. DT. 23/01/2020
                                DELETED NAME) S/O SHYAMLAL, AGED ABOUT 31
                                YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O: 10/13, VIJAY
                                NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    LOKESH @ LOKENDRA S/O RAMSWARUP
                                SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                LABOURER R/O: 44-A, SCHEME NO. 78, INDORE
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    MANOJ SHARMA S/O RAMSWARUP SHARMA,
                                AGED   ABOUT      23    YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                LABOURER, R/O: 44-A, SCHEME NO. 78, INDORE
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....PETITIONERS
                          (BY SHRI MOHAMMAD IKRAM ANSARI - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          THROUGH    P.S. LASUDIYA,  INDORE               (MADHYA
                          PRADESH)

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

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

1/ The petitioners/accused have preferred this criminal revision under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "Cr.P.C.") against the impugned judgment dated 3.9.2014 passed by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Signing time: 18-Jul-23 10:23:46 AM

learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Appeal No.642/2014, whereby the judgment dated 3.9.2014 passed by the learned JMFC, Indore in Criminal Case No.24766/2008 has been partly upheld and the petitioners have been convicted for the offence under Section 325/34 of IPC and each of them have been sentenced to undergo 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs.3,000/-, with usual default stipulation.

2/ Prosecution story in brief is that on 15.6.2008 at about 6.30 p.m. when the complainant Siddharth along with his friends Satyanarayan and Shankar Malik were taking dinner at a Dhaba and he asked to co-accused (deceased Jitu) for doing service immediately, upon this co-accused Jitu started

abusing him in filthy language. Then petitioners along with the co-accused Jitu attacked upon the complainant Siddharth, Satnarayan and Shankar by means of wooden stick, hockey and iron rod and also threatened them for life. Siddharth lodged FIR at P.S. Ladudiya, Indore. Accordingly offence has been registered. During the investigation, used weapons have been recovered from the possession of petitioners. MLC of the victim persons has been performed by the Dr. Atul Bandi (PW-7).

3/ After the investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners and co-accused before the JMFC, Indore. The trial Court framed the charges under Section 294, 325/34, 323, 506 Part-II of IPC against the petitioners and other co-accused. The petitioners and other co-accused abjured their guilt and pleaded complete innocence. The trial Court after considering the evidence available on record, convicted the petitioners for the offence under Section 323 and 325/34 of IPC and sentenced them to 6 months R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- and 2 years R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/-, with usual default stipulation.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Signing time: 18-Jul-23 10:23:46 AM

4/ Then petitioners preferred a Criminal Appeal before the appellate court, the same was partly allowed. Conviction under Section 323 of IPC has been set aside, but conviction under Section 325/34 of IPC is upheld by the appellate court and the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned herein-above. Hence, this present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners before this Court.

5/ The petitioners have preferred this criminal revision on several grounds but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners did not press this revision on merit. He did not assail the finding part of the judgment. He has confined his arguments on the quantum of sentence only. His sole prayer is that the imprisonment of the petitioners be reduced to the period already undergone, as the petitioners have already suffered more than two months imprisonment and they are facing trial since 2008. During the trial as well as during pendency of the criminal appeal and this revision, they have cooperated. It is further contended that the petitioners are poor persons. They have no criminal past. Therefore, their jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone.

6/ Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the criminal revision and prayed for its dismissal by submitting that the appellate court has rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner.

7/ Learned counsel for both the parties heard at length and considered their arguments.

8/ In view of the above submissions, although the conviction has not been challenged, perusal of the evidence also justified the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court as well as the first appellate court.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Signing time: 18-Jul-23 10:23:46 AM

9/ So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be just and proper. The petitioners have remained in jail from 23.12.2015 to 27.2.2016. Therefore, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioners.

10/ Having regard to the aforesaid, this criminal revision is partly allowed by maintaining the conviction, but reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioners. The petitioners are on bail, their bail and surety bonds stand discharged.

11/ The order regarding disposal of the property, as pronounced by the trial Court, is also affirmed.

12/ Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment along with the record of the trial Court as well as record of the first appellate court, to the concerned trial Court for its necessary compliance.

C.C. as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE trilok

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Signing time: 18-Jul-23 10:23:46 AM