Santosh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 10995 MP

                                                              1
                           IN     THE        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT INDORE
                                                     BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
                                                  ON THE 17 th OF JULY, 2023
                                             CRIMINAL REVISION No. 853 of 2017

                          BETWEEN:-
                          SANTOSH S/O BHAGWAN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
                          OCCUPATION: LABOUR GRAM GOGANWA TEH
                          MAHESHWAR KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI KAILASH CHANDRA KABRA, ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                          OFFICER THROUGH PS MANDLESHWAR (MADHYA
                          PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENT
                          (SHRI SURENDRA GUPTA -GOVT. ADVOCATE)

                                 T h is revision coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                          following:
                                                               ORDER

With consent of the parties heard finally.

1. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment dated 04.07.2017, passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, District Mandleshwar, in Cr.A.No.76/2016, affirming the judgment dated 31.03.2016, passed by learned JMFC, in criminal case No.257/2014 whereby the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced for 6 months R.I. with fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulations.

Signature Not Verified

2. The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision on several grounds Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 7/19/2023 6:29:48 PM

but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press this revision on merits and not assail the finding part of judgment. He confines his argument on the point of sentence only and prays that since the petitioner has already undergone approximately 17 days in jail incarceration, his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. It is also submitted that the petitioner has already deposited the fine amount so awarded by the learned trial Court. The petitioner deserves some leniency as the petitioner already suffered the ordeal of the trial since 2014 i.e.for a period of 09 years. It is further submitted that this petition be partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the

fine amount.

3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer.

4. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be just and proper.

5. However, the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court has not committed any error in appreciation of evidence available on record. Further, it is found that both the courts below considered the evidence available on record and correctly found that the case of the prosecution is well supported by the injured, witnesses and medical testimony. Both the Courts below have well considered the material available on record, hence, no infirmity is found in the impugned order of conviction passed by both the Courts below, accordingly, the same is upheld.

6. So far as, the sentence of the petitioner is concerned, after the lapse of almost 09 years, the submissions has been made by the petitioner regarding Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 7/19/2023 6:29:48 PM

enhancement fine appears to be proper. The petitioner has suffered the ordeal of criminal case since 2014, this Court finds it expedient to partly allow this revision petition by affirming the conviction of the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioner is hereby reduced to the sentence already undergone by increasing the fine amount from Rs. 500 to Rs.10,000/-, under Section 325 of IPC to be paid by the petitioner within a period one month from today. out of the fine amount so deposited by the petitioner Rs.5000/- be paid to Injured Ranchhod under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. by the trial Court. The fine amount, if already deposited as well as the compensation amount paid to the injured if any shall be adjusted. The bail bond of the petitioner shall be discharged after deposit of the fine amount. If the applicant fails to deposit the fine amount, he will suffer 1 month of simple imprisonment in default.

9. A copy of this order be send to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.

(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE VD

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 7/19/2023 6:29:48 PM