Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 9229 MP
Judgement Date : 20 June, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
ON THE 20 th OF JUNE, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 258 of 2012
BETWEEN:-
1. GHUMAN SINGH S/O BUNDEL SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: KHETI GRAM
BARAULA THANA PIPRAI TEH.MUHAWALI,
DISTT.ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. AMAR SINGH S/O BUNDEL SINGH, AGED ABOUT
45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE VILLAGE
BARAULA P.S. PIPRAI TEH. MUHAWALI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MADAN MOHAN TRIPATHI-ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF M.P. TH:P.S.PIPRAI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI LOKENDRA SHRIVASTAVA- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
Th is revision coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
With the consent of rival parties heard finally. This revision has been filed by the petitioners against the judgment dated 29.03.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Mungawali District Ashoknagar in Criminal Appeal No.72/2011 affirming the judgment of the JMFC Mungawali, Shivpuri in Criminal Case No.391/2006 on 14.03.2011 convicting petitioner under Section 325/34 of IPC and sentencing him to suffer 1 year RI
Signature Not Verified with fine of 500/-.
Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 6/21/2023 11:34:35 AM
At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but he confines his argument to the quantum of sentence part only. It is contended that since occurrence has taken place in the year 2006, the petitioners has suffered custody for about 5 days, petitioners were on bail during trial and they had never misused the liberty granted to them, fine amount has already been deposited by the petitioners, therefore, it is prayed that sentence awarded to them for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.them.
On the other hand, State Counsel opposed the contentions of counsel for petitioners and submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the
sentence awarded to petitioners nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused impugned judgment as well as record.
It is not disputed that occurrence relates to year 2006, petitioners was on bail during trial and they had never misused the liberty granted to them. Fine amount has already been deposited by the petitioners Thus, looking to overall circumstances, it will be just and proper if sentence awarded to the petitioners by trial Court for aforesaid offences is reduced to the period already undergone by them.
Accordingly, this revision is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the petitioners for aforesaid offences, the sentence awarded to the petitioners is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.5000/- from Rs.500/- in respect of offence under Section 325/34 of IPC against each of the petitioners. The fine Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 6/21/2023 11:34:35 AM
amount, if any, deposited by petitioners shall be adjusted in the enhance amount. Three months' time from the date of receipt of copy of this order is hereby granted to the petitioners to deposit the aforesaid fine amount and the same shall be payable to complainant(s) by way of compensation, failing which petitioners shall undergo further one month additional imprisonment. Petitioners are on bail, their bail bonds stand discharged.
Let a copy of this order along with record of trial Court be sent back forthwith.
(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE ojha
Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 6/21/2023 11:34:35 AM
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!