Madhya Pradesh High Court
Akshay @ Raj Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 June, 2023
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 15th OF JUNE, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No.1304 of 2023
Between:-
AKSHAY @ RAJ SAHU S/O JAGDEESH PRASAD
SAHU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, BUSINESS R/O
SUGAR FACTORY CHORAHA, P.S. KOTWALI
DISTRICT SEHORE (M.P.).
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI SATYAM AGARWAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH P.S. LALBAGH,
BURHANPUR, MADHYA PRADESH.
......RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI S.M.PATEL - PANEL LAWYER
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESERVED ON : 10.05.2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 15.06.2023
__________________________________________________________
This misc.criminal case 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
20.03.2023 passed by Sessions Judge Sehore in Cr.A.No.275/2022
(Akshay @ Raj Sahu Vs. State of M.P) whereby affirming the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.11.2022 passed by learned
JMFC, Sehore in RCT No.2701349/2016 (State of M.P. Vs. Akshay @
Raj Sahu) wherein applicant has been convicted for commission of
offence under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced to 01 year S.I with fine
of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation has been allowed in part as sentence
imposed is reduced from 01 year S.I. to 06 months S.1. with fine of
Rs.1000 /-.
2. As per the prosecution story on 25.11.2016, at around 11 A.M.
Rajendra Sahu (P.W.1) had gone to open the lock of his shop. When he
bent down to open the lock of his shop, Akshay, who is his brother's son
came from behind and beat him by means of wood stick. On account of
wood stick's blows he sustained injuries in the palm of left hand and
fingers. He was taken to the District Hospital Sehore where he was
examined by Dr. Umesh Shrivastava (P.W.3). In x-ray examination,
fracture was found in his fourth metacarpal bone. F.LR 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 325 and 506
of IPC. The applicant pleaded not guilty. Learned trial court after hearing
the parties convicted the accused/applicant as mentioned hereinabove.
4. Applicant challenged the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence by preferring appeal before the court of Sessions but the same
was partly allowed by the Sessions Judge vide judgment dated
20.03.2023. Hence, this revision.
5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted
that he does not want to challenge his conviction under section 325 of the
IPC. Applicant is 34 years old young man having no criminal
background. He is the first offender and incident has taken place on spur
of moment as there was some dispute in the family over ownership and
possession of the shop. Applicant is the real nephew of the injured.
Applicant is in jail for almost last three months. Therefore, it is prayed
that applicant be released by reducing the sentence to the period already
undergone by him so for.
6. Learned counsel for the State has supported the findings recorded
by the courts below and has submitted that learned first appellate court
has already reduced the sentence from 01 year S.I to 06 months S.I and as
jail sentence has already been reduced, there is no need for further
reduction in the jail sentence and prayed for rejection of the prayer made
by the applicant.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. Rajendra Sahu (P.W.1) has deposed that applicant Akshay is his
elder brother's son. 5-6 years ago at around 10 A.M. he had gone to open
his shop situated at Galla Mandi Road, Sehore and when he bent to open
the locks of his shop, applicant Akshay came from behind and gave a
wood stick blow on his person. He had sustained fracture in his right
hand. He further deposed that F.I.R. (Ex.P/1) was lodged by him. The
evidence of Rajendra Sahu (P.W.1) finds corroboration from the evidence
of Mayank Sahu (P.W.2). Their evidence stand fortified from the medical
evidence of Dr. Umesh Shrivastava (P.W.3) who has deposed that in
medical examination of Rajendra Sahu he had found swelling and
abrasion on the left hand and index finger of the left hand and bruises on
the right hand. According to him two injuries were simple in nature while
X-ray was advised for injury on right hand and in x-ray plate fracture was
found in his fourth metacarpal bone. He has proved MLC report (Ex.P/3)
and x-ray report (Ex.P/4).
9. Ramnarayan Dhurve (P.W.4) is the scribe of F.I.R and N.N. Verma
(P.W.5) is the investigating Officer. On examination of the evidence of
aforesaid witnesses, it is apparent that it was the applicant who had
voluntarily caused grievous injury on the metacarpal bone of the right
hand of injured Rajendra Sahu (P.W.1).
10. So far as the findings of conviction of applicant under section 325
of IPC by the courts below are concerned, no illegality or infirmity is
found in the findings. Thus, the finding 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, learned counsel for the
applicant has submitted that applicant has no criminal background. It was
a family dispute over possession of the shop and incident took place on
spur of moment. Applicant is 34 years old young man. He is first
offender. He has already suffered three months incarceration. Thus, he
has prayed to commute the sentence to the period already undergone.
Having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I
am of the view that it is a case in which applicant's sentence may be
reduced from six months S.I. to 03 months S.I. by enhancing the fine
amount.
12. In this case it is worthwhile to mention that applicant is facing
rigour of trial for last seven years as incident had taken place long back in
the year 2016. Applicant and injured are family members. There was
some dispute over possession of the land and shop. Therefore, having
taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am
of the view that ends of justice would meet if sentence is reduced from
six months S.1. to 03 months S.1. by enhancing the fine amount from
1,000/-(Rs. One Thousand) to Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand).
13. Consequently, this revision is allowed on the point of sentence
imposed under section 325 of IPC and the same is reduced from six
months S.I to the period to 03 months S.I. by enhancing the fine amount
from Rs.1000/- (Rs.One Thousand) to Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten 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.4000/- (Rs. Four Thousand) be
given to the complainant/injured Rajendra Sahu (P.W.1) in place of
Rs.500/- as directed by the trial court as compensation under
section.357(1) of the Cr.P.C.
14. Registry is directed to prepare super session warrant and inform the
Superintendent of District Jail, Sehore to release the applicant forthwith
unless 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, Sehore.
15. Revision is allowed in part with aforesaid modification.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
MKL
MANOJ KUMAR LALWANI
2023.06.15 18:39:48
+05'30'
