Laxman Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 8694 MP

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                       AT JABALPUR
                                             BEFORE
              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
                            ON THE 14th DAY OF JUNE, 2023
                          CRIMINAL REVISION No.630 of 2023

                 Between:-

                 LAXMAN LODHI S/O PRATAP LODHI, AGED
                 ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION LABOUR R/O
                 VILLAGE DONGERGAON, P.S. STATIONGANJ
                 DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (M.P.).
                                                    .....APPLICANT

                 (BY SHRI BRIJENDRA SWAROOP SAHU- ADVOCATE)

                 AND

                 THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH POLICE
                 STATION KOTWALI DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR
                 (M.P.).

                                                                            ......RESPONDENT

                 ( SHRI PRADEEP GUPTA - GOVT. ADVOCATE)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESERVED ON :                     11.05.2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 14.06.2023
__________________________________________________________
        This criminal revision coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble
Shri Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal, passed the following:

                                            ORDER

This revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C has been preferred by the applicant assailing the appeal judgment dated

28.01.2023 passed by IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur in Cr.A.No.53/2022 (Laxman Lodhi Vs. State of M.P.) whereby the judgment of conviction 07.03.2022 passed by learned JMFC, Narsinghpur in RCT No.2700/2015 (State of M.P. Vs. Laxman Lodhi) convicting the applicant for commission of offence under Section 325/34 of IPC has been affirmed but sentence of 01(One) year R.I and fine of Rs. 2000/- with default stipulation has been modified and reduced from 01 year R.I. to 06 months R.I. with fine of Rs.2000/-.

2. As per the prosecution story on 25.07.2015 at around 11.30 A.M. complainant Narbadi Bai had gone to bring fodder from back side of her home, in order to illegally occupy her land, she found her brother-in-law Pratap Lodhi alongwith Laxman Lodhi pouring soil on her land. When her son Raju @Rajkumar asked them not to pour soil, they both marched to beat him. When Narbadi Bai went to rescue him, they both abused her and Laxman Lodhi gave a sickle blow on her right shoulder and Pratap Lodhi gave a blow on her left armpit from handle of axe. She sustained injuries. They also threatened to do death. The incident was witnessed by Chandu Mallah and Anni Mehra. F.I.R was registered. After investigation charge sheet was filed.

3. Learned trial court framed the charges against the applicant/accused for commission of offence under section 294,324,323,325,34 and 506-II of IPC. The applicant pleaded not guilty. Learned trial court after hearing the parties convicted the accused/applicant and co-accused Pratap Lodhi for offence under section 325/34 as mentioned above.

4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined five witnesses, whereas, applicant did not examine any witness in defence.

5. Applicant challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence by preferring appeal but the learned IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction for an offence under section 325/34 but reduced the sentence from one year R.I. and fine of Rs.2000//- to 06 months R.I. and fine of Rs.2000/- vide judgment dated 28.01.2023. Hence, this revision.

6. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he does not want to challenge his conviction under section 325/34 of the IPC. Applicant is in jail since appeal judgment dated 28.1.2023. He is the first offender. He has already suffered about four months and 15 days incarceration. Therefore, it is prayed that applicant be released by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by him.

7. Learned counsel for the State has supported the findings recorded by the courts below but fairly admitted that applicant is the first offender. He has already suffered more than 4 ½ months of jail sentence. Therefore, he has no objection if jail sentence of the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. Injured Narbadi Bai (P.W.1) in her evidence has deposed that on the date of incident accused Laxman had given a sickle blow on her right shoulder and Pratap Lodhi gave axe handle's blow on her left armpit causing injuries. Her evidence finds corroboration from the evidence of Rajaram (P.W.2) and from the evidence of K.P.Dwivedi (P.W.5) the scribe of F.I.R. (Ex.P/1) which was promptly lodged by the injured/complainant. In medical examination Dr.G.C.Chourasia (P.W.3) had found one incised wound of 6 x 2 cm on the right shoulder of injured Narbadi Bai. He had also noticed pain and swelling on her left hand. X-ray was advised. In x-

ray examination, fracture was found on the left shoulder of the injured Narbadi Bai. Thus, the evidence of Narbadi Bai (P.W.1) is not only corroborated by the evidence of eye-witness Rajaram (P.W.2) but it also stands fortified by the medical evidence and promptly lodged F.I.R. Therefore, I am of the view that the learned courts below have not committed any error in convicting the applicant for commission of offence under section 325/34 of IPC.

10. Thus, on scanning and examining of the evidence of prosecution witnesses available on record, the findings of conviction of applicant under section 325/34 of IPC by the courts below, no illegality, incorrectness or infirmity is visible in the findings. Hence, the findings of conviction under section 325/34 of IPC recorded by the courts below against the applicant does not warrant interference and is hereby affirmed.

11. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, applicant has already suffered 4 ½ months incarceration. He is 27 years old young man having no criminal background. Therefore, having taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case including the incarceration period already undergone by him, I am of the view that it is a case in which applicant's sentence may be reduced from six months R.I. to the period already undergone by him so far by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.2000/- to Rs.5000/-.

12. Consequently, this revision is allowed in part and the applicant's sentence under section 325/34 of IPC is reduced from six months RI to a period already undergone by him so far by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.2000/- (Two Thousand) to Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand). Applicant is directed to deposit the enhanced fine amount within one

month from today before the trial court. It is further directed that upon depositing the enhanced fine amount, Rs.3000/- (Rs. Three Thousand) be given to the complainant/injured Narbadi Bi (P.W.1) as compensation under section 357(1) of the Cr.P.C.

13. Registry is directed to prepare super session warrant and inform the Superintendent of District Jail, Narsinghpur to release the applicant forthwith if he is not required in any other case. Records of the courts below alongwith copy of this order be sent down to the court concerned through Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur.

14. Revision is allowed in part with aforesaid modification.

(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL) JUDGE

MKL MANOJ KUMAR LALWANI 2023.06.15 11:53:19 +05'30'