Bahadursingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 11500 MP

                                                            1
                            IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT INDORE
                                                       BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                                                 ON THE 24 th OF JULY, 2023
                                            CRIMINAL REVISION No. 303 of 2014

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    BAHADURSINGH S/O INDERSINGH, AGED ABOUT
                                 51 YEARS, R/O: GRAM KANAKHEDA, THANA
                                 BAROD, DIST. SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    GUMANSINGH S/O INDER SINGH, AGED ABOUT 47
                                 YEARS, R/O: VILL KANAKHEDA, THANA BAROD,
                                 DIST. SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)


                                                                                        .....APPLICANTS
                           (SHRI GOURAV SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH DISTRICT
                           MAGISTRATE, DIST. SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENT
                           (BY SHRI H.S RATHORE - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                 This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the

                           following:
                                                             ORDER

The applicants have preferred this Criminal Revision under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 05.03.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Agar, Dist. Shajapur, whereby appeal has been partly allowed and reduced the sentence passed by the JMFC, Agar. In Criminal Case No.499/2008 delivered on 10.08.2011, whereby the trial Court has

Signature Not Verified convicted the applicants/ accused persons for the offence under Section 324/34 Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 26-07-2023 10:12:23

of IPC and sentenced to undergo 02-02 years R.I. with fine of Rs.500-500/- and reduced it into 6-6 months R.I. with usual default stipulation.

2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 17.07.2008, at about 3:00 PM, at Village Kanakheda, applicants/ accused persons Guman Singh, Bahadur Singh, Bablu Singh and Darbar Singh entered into the field of complainant and then intercepted him and abusing him in filthy language and by means of wooden stick, axe and Pirani, they attacked upon the complainant Shankarlal and Tufansingh, due to which both the victims sustained simple injuries. All the accused persons have also threatened him for life, at that time, wife of Guman Singh came there, then accused persons fled away from the spot. After that,

Complainant lodged an FIR. MLC of complainants was conducted by Dr. Suresh Soni (PW-9).

3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the present applicant and other accused persons before the Additional Sessions Judge, Agar, Dist. Shajapur. The trial Court has framed the charges under Sections 341, 323/34, 324/34, 506 and 504 of IPC against the applicants/ accused persons. Applicants have abjured their guilt and took a plea that they have been falsely implicated in the instant case. The trial Court after considering the submissions advanced by both the parties and scrutinizing entire evidence available on record, convicted the applicants/accused persons for the offence under Section 324/ 34 of IPC and acquitted them from all other charges.

4. Being aggrieved by the said conviction, applicants have preferred a criminal appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Agar and the same was partly allowed. Their conviction for the aforesaid offence has been upheld, but sentence of 2 years R.I. for the offence under Section 324/ 34 of IPC is Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 26-07-2023 10:12:23

reduced to 6 months R.I. with fine of Rs.500/-.

5. The applicants have preferred the present Revision on several grounds, but during the course of the argument, learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not want to press this Criminal Revision on merit and is not assailing the conviction and sentence part of the judgment. He has confined his argument only to the extent of quantum of the sentence and his sole prayer is that the imprisonment of the applicants be reduced to the period already undergone by them, as the applicants have already suffered jail incarceration for more than one month and 17 days and he is facing trial for last 11 years. Applicant No.1 is 63 years old, applicant No.2 is 59 years old and applicant No.3 is 34 years old. They are poor persons and are not having any criminal background, therefore, their jail sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the revision and prays for its rejection by submitting that both the Courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicants 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 learned counsel for the applicants, although the conviction has not been challenged, but a bare perusal of the

evidence available on record also justifies the judgment of conviction passed by both the Courts below.

9. So far as the quantum of jail sentence is concerned, the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants appear to be just and proper. The applicants were remained in custody for a period of more than 03.12.2010 to 04.12.2010 and applicant No.1 and applicant No.2 have suffered jail Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 26-07-2023 10:12:23

incarceration from 05.03.2014 to 28.04.2014 and applicant No.3 Darbar Singh has suffered jail incarceration from 05.03.2014 to 24.03.2014. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to reduce the jail sentence to the period already undergone by the applicants.

10. Considering the aforesaid, the revision is partly allowed by maintaining the conviction of the applicants, but reducing their jail sentence to the period already undergone by them. The fine amount imposed upon the applicants by both the Courts below is hereby affirmed. Applicants are on bail, their surety and bail bonds stand discharged.

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

12. Let a copy of this order alongwith record of the both the Courts below be sent back to the concerned Courts for information and necessary compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Anushree

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 26-07-2023 10:12:23