Jitendra Dubey vs State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 9170 MP

 CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 847/2011                                                       1

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                    AT GWALIOR
                                      BEFORE
                           HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
                             JUDGEMENT DATED 20th JUNE, 2023

                             CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 847/2011

      Between:-
      JITENDRA DUBEY S/O VISHRAM DUBEY, AGED ABOUT 27
      YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT CHATURVEDI NAGAR, DIST.
      BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                     .....PETITIONER
      (BY SHRI PRADEEP KATARE - ADVOCATE )

      AND

      STATE OF M.P. TH: P.S. UMRI, DIST. BHIND (MADHYA
      PRADESH)
                                                                  ..... RESPONDENT
      ( BY MR. ROHIT SHRIVASTAVA - PANEL LAWYER)



          This revision coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
 following:-

                                        ORDER

1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner under section 397

r/w section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment dated

21/09/2011 passed by Sessions Judge, District Bhind in Cr. A. No. 175/2011

affirming the judgment dated 21/04/2011 passed in Criminal Case No. 4208/2006

by Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Bhind, whereby, the learned trial Court

convicted Signature the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 325 r/w section Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR 34 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for One Year with Signing time: 22-06-2023 04:48:29 PM

fine of Rs. 200/- with default stipulation and acquitted the petitioner from the

offence punishable under section 504 & 506 Part - 2 of IPC.

2. As per prosecution story, short facts of the case leading to filing of this

criminal revision are that complainant has lodged a report at the police station

concerned alleging therein that complainant has installed a wooden stick (balli)

into his field, which was thrown away by the petitioner from the field of the

complainant and on 05/12/2006 at about 4.30 Pm, when the complainant came to

his house, at that time, the petitioner Jitendra and co-accused Anuj were sitting

near his door, at that time, the complainant asked the accused persons in regard to

throwing away the wooden stick (balli) which was installed by him into his field,

on which, the petitioner started using obscene words against him, which was

opposed by the complainant, due to which, the petitioner assaulted him by means

of Sariya, which hit on his right hand elbow and blood started oozing out.

Thereafter, co-accused persons assaulted him by means of lathi, which hit below

the elbow of left hand and blood started oozing out from it. Thereafter, the

complainant screamed loudly, on which, Ramprakash, Ramlakhan and Brijmohan

came to rescue him. Thereafter, accused persons fled away from the spot by

threatening the complainant to kill him in future. Thereafter, complainant lodged

the report bearing crime No. 243/2006 dated 05/12/2006 at police station Umari,

District Bhind for the offence punishable under sections 323, 294, 506 & 34 of Signature Not Verified IPC. On lodging of F.I.R., criminal law was triggered and set in motion, Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 22-06-2023 04:48:29 PM

investigation agency arrived at spot, the injured was sent for medical examination,

recorded the statements of the eye-witnesses; prepared the spot map; arrested the

accused persons and during investigation offence punishable under section 325 of

IPC was enhanced and after completion of all due formalities, the charge sheet

was submitted before the trial Court having criminal jurisdiction.

3. The learned trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner for the

offence punishable under sections 504, 325 r/w section 34, 506 Part - 2 of IPC,

which was denied by the petitioner. In order to bring home the charges,

prosecution has examined as many as nine (9) prosecution witnesses (PW- 1 to

PW-9) and the petitioner has examined Neeraj Sharma (DW-1) and Chunnu

Sharma (DW-2) as defence witnesses. The defence of accused is of false

implication and the same defence has been put forth by him in his statement

recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

4. The learned trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the rival parties and

after appreciating the evidence available on record vide judgment dated

21/04/2011 passed in Criminal Case No. 4208/2006 convicted the petitioner for

the offence punishable under Sections 325 r/w section 34 of IPC and sentenced

him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for One Year with fine of Rs. 200/- with

default stipulation and acquitted the petitioner from the offence punishable under

section 504 & 506 Part - 2 of IPC. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY bearing Cr. A. No. 175/2011 before the learned Sessions Judge, District Bhiind. NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 22-06-2023 04:48:29 PM

The learned lower appellate Court after hearing learned counsel for the rival

parties vide impugned judgment dated 21/09/2011 affirmed the judgment dated

21/04/2011 passed by the trial Court, against which, the present revision is filed.

5. Learned counsel for the accused/petitioner argued that the petitioner has

falsely been implicated in the case. It is further argued that there are omissions and

contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It is further submitted

that prosecution has not examined any independent witness, but only interested

witnesses have been examined. It is further argued that the petitioner is facing the

criminal proceedings from the date of incident i.e. 05/12/2006 to till date and is

suffering physically and mentally for the same and the petitioner has already

served total incarceration of approximately 08 days till date including pre and post

conviction period out of total awarded maximum sentence of One year. It is further

argued that the injuries sustained by the complainant / victim were simple in

nature, but the learned trial Court has ignored this important aspect of the matter

and has convicted the petitioner vide impugned judgment. On these grounds, it is

prayed that the revision filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed and the

judgment of conviction deserves to be set aside.

6. In alternative, leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has already served total incarceration of approximately 08 days till date out of

total awarded maximum sentence of One Year including pre and post conviction Signature Not Verified period. It is further submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the fact that Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 22-06-2023 04:48:29 PM

petitioner has already served substantive part of jail sentence, the same may be

reduced to the period already undergone and the amount of fine may reasonably be

enhanced.

7. Learned counsel for respondent/State submits that after due appreciation of

evidence, learned Court below has found the offence proved against the petitioner,

which requires no interference. It is submitted that the revision filed by the

petitioner be dismissed.

8. From perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that no illegality has

been committed by the learned Courts below in convicting the petitioner, hence

the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Courts below requires no

interference and the same is hereby maintained.

9. So far as the period of sentence is concerned, looking to the limited prayer

made by the counsel for the petitioner and the nature of offence and the fact that

petitioner is facing the criminal proceedings since 2006 and has already served

jail sentence of 08 days, the purpose would be served in case the jail sentence

awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of six months instead of one year

as awarded by the court below.

10. In the result, this criminal revision is partly allowed. The findings of

conviction are hereby maintained with the modification to the extent that the jail

sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of six months instead of Signature Not Verified one year as awarded by the court below subject to depositing fine amount as Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 22-06-2023 04:48:29 PM

imposed by the Courts below, failing which, the petitioner shall suffer jail sentence

awarded by the learned Court below. The petitioner is on bail, his bail bonds are

cancelled and the sureties are discharged. The trial court is directed to put the

petitioner behind the bar for serving him remaining part of jail sentence.

11. With the aforesaid modification, the instant criminal revision stands disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

(SUNITA YADAV) JUDGE Durgekar*

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 22-06-2023 04:48:29 PM