Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 9019 MP
Judgement Date : 19 June, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 19 th OF JUNE, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1257 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
1. SURBHAN S/O JAMSINGH BARELA VILLAGE
DAGGADKHEDI DHULKOT (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PEMLA S/O SURBHAN BARELA OCCUPATION: NIL
VILLAGE DAGGADKHEDI, DHULKOT,
DISTT.KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. JAGIRAM S/O SURBHAN BARELA OCCUPATION:
NIL VILLAGE DAGGADKHEDI, DHULKOT,
DISTT.KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI HARSHVARDHAN PATHAK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER .
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THRU.P.S.BHAGWANPURA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI RAJESH JOSHI APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ADVOCATE
GENERAL.
T h is revision coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
With consent of the parties heard finally.
1. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.09.2015 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone District West Nimar in Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 6/22/2023 6:10:13 PM
Cr.A.No.226/2012, affirming the judgment dated 25.07.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, in criminal case No.1374/2008 whereby the petitioners have been convicted for offence under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 of IPC for 06 months and 01 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 100/- & Rs.300/- each with default stipulations.
2. At the very outset, counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner No.Surbhan S/o Jamsingh Barela has already been expired and in support of this Contention, death certificate has already been filed on record and the same has already been verified by counsel for the State.
3. In view of the aforesaid submissions and verification of death, the
revision petition stands abated qua petitioner no.1 and is being decided qua rest of the petitioners.
4. The petitioners have preferred this criminal revision on several grounds but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners did not press this revision on merit and not assails the finding part of judgment. He confines his argument on the point of sentence only and prays that since the petitioners have already undergone 10 days in jail incarceration, their sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. It is further submitted that the petitioners deserve some leniency as the petitioner already suffered the ordeal of the trial since 2008 i.e.for a period of 15 years. It is further submitted that this petition be partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioners be reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the fine amount.
5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supports the impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of this revision.
6. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be just and Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 6/22/2023 6:10:13 PM
proper.
7. However, the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court has not committed any error in appreciation of evidence available on record. Both the Courts below have well considered the material available on record, hence, no infirmity is found in the impugned order of conviction passed by both the Courts below, accordingly, the same is upheld.
8. So far as the sentence of the petitioners is concerned, after the lapse of almost 15 years, the submissions has been made by the petitioner regarding imposing only the fine appears to be proper. The petitioner has suffered the ordeal of criminal case since 2008 and there is no criminal record/antecedents of the petitioner, this Court finds it expedient to partly allow this revision petition by affirming the conviction of the petitioners.
9. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioners is hereby reduced to the sentence already undergone b y increasing the fine amount to Rs.1000/- under Section 323/34 of IPC and Rs. 10,000/- under Section 325/34 of IPC to be paid by both accused persons within a period one month from today, out of the fine amount so deposited by the petitioners Rs.2,000/- be paid to Injured- Bharsingh, Heerabai, Tukaram and Rem Singh each. Since the petitioners are already on bail, their bail bonds stand discharged.
10. It is made clear that if the petitioners fails to comply with the conditions as stipulated by this Court, as aforesaid, then the order of the appellate Court shall be revived and petitioners shall suffer the jail sentence as already imposed by the appellate Court.
11. A copy of this order be send to the concerned trial Court for
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 6/22/2023 6:10:13 PM
necessary compliance.
C.C.as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE amit
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 6/22/2023 6:10:13 PM
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!