Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gokulsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 July, 2023
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 3 rd OF JULY, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 932 of 2016
BETWEEN:-
GOKULSINGH S/O SHAVSINGH,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOUR, AGRICULTURE
R/O. GRAM KACHRIYA, TEH. MAHIDPUR,
DISTT. UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI RITU RAJ BHATNAGAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
STATION HOUSE OFFICER THRU.
P.S. MAHIDPUR, DISTT. UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI GAURAV RAWAT -DY. GOVT. ADVOCATE)
Th is revision coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
With consent of the parties heard finally.
This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.has been filed by
the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.07.2016 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahidpur, District Ujjain in
Cr.A.No.442/2015 whereby the appeal was allowed by affirming the order of
conviction of the appellant passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahidpur,
District Ujjain for offence under Section 325 of IPC, 1860 and sentence of 1
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUMATHI
Signing time: 05-07-
2023 10:55:54
year R.I with fine and default stipulations.
2. Prosecution story in nutshell is that on 06.07.2012 when complainant
Badrilal lodged a report that on that day when he was working in his field the
applicant came there and started quarreling that the field belongs to him. Further
it is alleged that the applicant assaulted the complainant with stick due to which
he sustained injuries. On the basis of which Police registered FIR bearing
Crime No.247/2012 against the applicant for offence under Section 323, 504,
325 of IPC, 1860
3. During investigation, spot map was prepared and the statement of
witnesses were recorded. Applicant was arrested. Injured Badrilal was sent for
medical examination. In the medical examination, it was found that injured
sustained fracture in his left clavicle bone and the injuries sustained were simple
in nature. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed against the
applicant for offence under Sections 323, 325 and 504 of IPC, 1860.
4. Having considered the documents on record, learned trial Court has
framed charges under Sections 325 and 504 of IPC. Plea of the applicant was
recorded in which he abjured the guilt and took a plea that he is innocent.
5. Having analysed the evidence adduced by the prosecution, learned
trial Court, while passing the judgment, convicted the applicant for offence
punishable under Section 325 of IPC, 1860 and sentenced to undergo 1 year
R.I. with a fine of Rs.2000/- and usual default stipulation respectively. Out of
the fine amount compensation of Rs.1000/- was directed in favour of the
complainant. An appeal was filed against the said conviction and sentence,
which was allowed vide judgment dated 18.07.2016. This judgment is under
challenge in the present revision petition
6. Counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has already undergone
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUMATHI
Signing time: 05-07-
2023 10:55:54
jail sentence of 24 days out of one year. The incident took place in the year 2012.
The applicant was on bail during trial, appeal and revision and did not misuse the
liberty. He maintained good record and relation with the complainant. No purpose
would be served in sending the applicant in jail after such long period. Therefore,
the applicant may be sentenced to the period already undergone and fine amount
may be increased which may be directed to be paid to the complainant.
7. Counsel for State do not dispute the aforesaid facts.
8. So far as the finding regarding conviction of the applicant is concerned
the incident is well supported by complainant/injured and the statement of the
witnesses . It is also supported by the medical testimony of Dr. D.C. Saxena
(P.W.4) and as per X-ray report there was a fracture in left clavicle bone. As
such in view of the aforesaid, the findings of conviction recorded by learned trial
Court as well as the First Appellate Court has no infirmity and warrants no
interference, therefore, the finding of conviction under Sections 325 of IPC is
affirmed.
9. Now coming to the point of sentence, after hearing learned counsel for
parties and taking into consideration the short jail sentence of the applicant and the
period already undergone by him, I am of the opinion that case is made out for
reducing the sentence of the applicant to the period already undergone with
enhancement of fine amount. Further the incident has taken place in the year
2012 and the applicant has maintained good record and did not misuse the liberty.
No purpose would be served in sending the applicant in jail after such a long
period. Therefore, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction is maintained.
The jail sentence of the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone by
him and in lieu of remaining sentence the fine amount is enhanced from Rs.2000/-
to Rs.10,000/-, which shall be paid by the applicant before the trial court within
two months from today. Out of total fine amount Rs.10,000/- an amount of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUMATHI
Signing time: 05-07-
2023 10:55:54
Rs.7,000/- shall be paid to the complainant - Badrilal under Section 357(3) of
Cr.P.C., by the trial court. The fine amount, if already deposited, be adjusted.
The bail bonds of the applicant shall be discharged after deposit of the fine
amount.
10. In case if the applicant fails to deposit the fine amount within the
aforesaid period, the applicant shall undergo the remaining jail sentence as per the
order of appellate court.
11. A copy of this order be send to the concerned trial Court for
necessary compliance.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
sumathi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUMATHI
Signing time: 05-07-
2023 10:55:54
