Darbarsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 11502 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. 380 of 2014

                           BETWEEN:-
                           DARBARSINGH S/O GUMANSINGH, AGED ABOUT 22
                           YE A R S , OCCUPATION: NOT MENTIONED VILLAGE
                           KANAKHEDA P.S. BAROD (MADHYA PRADESH)

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

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH COLLECTOR/
                           DISTRICT  MAGISTRATE DISTRICT 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 convicted the applicants/ accused persons for the offence under Section 324/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 02-02 years R.I. with fine of Rs.500-500/-

Signature Not Verified and reduced it into 6-6 months R.I. with usual default stipulation. Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 26-07-2023 10:12:23

2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 17.07.2008, at about 3:00 PM, at Village Kanakheda, accused persons Guman Singh, Bahadur Singh, Bablu Singh and present applicant 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 applicant and other accused persons. Applicant and other accused persons 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 and other 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, applicant has preferred a criminal appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Agar and the same was partly allowed. His 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 reduced to 6 months R.I. with fine of Rs.500/-. Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 26-07-2023 10:12:23

5. The applicant has 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 one month and 17 days and he is facing trial for last 11 years. Applicant is a 34 years old. He is poor person and is not having any criminal background, therefore, his 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 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 applicant appear to be just and proper. The applicant was remained in custody for a period of more than 03.12.2010 to 04.12.2010 and applicant Darbar Singh has suffered jail incarceration from 05.03.2014 to 24.03.2014. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be

Signature Not Verified appropriate to reduce the jail sentence to the period already undergone by the Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 26-07-2023 10:12:23

applicant.

10. Considering the aforesaid, the revision is partly allowed by maintaining the conviction of the applicants, 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, his 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