Prabhu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 11501 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. 3669 of 2017

                           BETWEEN:-
                           PRABHU S/O RANG JI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
                           OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O: VILL. BHOJPURA,
                           DIST. RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....APPLICANT
                           (BY MS. MAYURI JAIN - ADVOCATE APPEARING ON BEHALF OF MR.
                           ABHAY SARASWAT - ADVOCATE)

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

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

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

The applicant has 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 of conviction and sentence dated 19.03.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ratlam in Criminal

Case No.393/2014, whereby the judgment dated 26.07.2017 passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam in Criminal Case No.48/2014 has been modified and applicant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 of IPC and sentenced to R.I for 3 months R.I. with fine of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 26-07-2023 10:12:23

Rs.400/- and R.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs.400/- respectively with usual default stipulation.

2 . The prosecution story in brief is that on 19.03.2014, complainant Mangu lodged an FIR at P.S. Bajna, district Ratlam by stating that when he was working on his agricultural field, at that time, accused Partha, Kailash, Rakma, Rakesh, Pankaj and present applicant Prabhu came there and started abusing him in filthy language and caught hold the complainant and started beating him by means of axe, wooden stick, fists and kicks. When Bhurji and Bhaddu tried to intervene them, accused persons have also beaten them, due to which victim Mangu, Bhurji sustained several injuries. Accused persons also threatened the

complainant that if he lodged an FIR at Police Station then they would kill him. MLC of victim persons was conducted by Dr. Kripal Singh Rathore and it was found that Mangu and Bhurji have sustained grievous injuries.

3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant before the Trial Court, Kukshi, which has framed charges under Sections 147, 294, 323/149, 326/149 and 506 of IPC against the applicant and other accused persons. They have abjured their guilt and took a plea that they h a v e 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 applicant and other accused persons under Sections 147, 294, 323/149, 326/149 and 506 of IPC.

4. Being aggrieved by the said conviction, the applicant has preferred a

Criminal Appeal before the III r d Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam, and the same was partly allowed, but he has been convicted for the offences under Sections 324/34 and 325/34 of IPC and his sentence has been upheld. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the applicants/ accused persons preferred Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 26-07-2023 10:12:23

this criminal revision.

5. The applicants have preferred the present Revision on several grounds, but during the course of the argument, learned counsel for the applicant 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 applicant be reduced to the period already undergone by him, as the applicant has already suffered jail incarceration for more than 19 days and he is facing trial for last 16 years. Applicant is a 32 years old. He is poor person and is 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 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 learned counsel for the applicant, 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 applicant appear to be just and proper. The applicant has remained in custody for a period of more than 19 days and he has suffered jail incarceration from 26.07.2017 to 16.11.2017. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to reduce the jail sentence to the

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

period already undergone by the applicants.

1 0 . Considering the aforesaid, the revision is partly allowed by maintaining the conviction of the applicant, but reducing HIS jail sentence to the period already undergone by him. The fine amount imposed upon the applicant by both the Courts below is hereby affirmed. Applicant IS on bail, their surety and bail bonds shall 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 both the Courts below b e 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