Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 June, 2023
Author: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 26th OF JUNE, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 601 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
MUKESH S/O RAMLAL, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
VILLAGE KHALGHAT, P.S. DHAMNOD, DISTT.
DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
( BY SHRI NILESH DAVE - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH DISTRICT
MAGISTRATE DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( BY SHRI KAPIL MAHANT - PL )
_____________________________________________________________________
This revision coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
With the consent of both the parties, matter is heard finally.
This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been
filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by impugned judgment dated
26/05/2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dharampuri,
District Dhar in Criminal Appeal No. 256/2014 whereby the judgment
dated 19/09/2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Dharampuri, District Dhar in Criminal Case No.603/2006 has been
modified by acquitting the petitioner from the offence under section
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 27-06-2023
17:56:03
498-A of IPC and upheld the conviction under Sections 323 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo six months RI.
2/ The prosecution story in brief is that marriage of the
complainant Kiran was solemnized with petitioner Mukesh three years
prior to the incident. Co-accused Sunderbai was her mother-in-law. After
marriage, both the accused persons used to mentally and physically
harass the complainant for non-fulfillment of their demand of dowry. On
15/06/2005, they threw out the complainant of the house after beating
her. Thereafter, the matter was amicably settled between them and they
again started to live together. On 04/09/2006, both the accused persons
beat the complainant and also threatened her that if she opens her
mouth, they would kill her. Thereafter, the complainant lodged FIR at
police station - Dharampuri. Dr. Kamna Sharma conducted her MLC.
Accordingly, offence has been registered.
3/ After conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed
against the petitioners before the JMFC, Dharampuri who framed the
charges under sections 498-A, 324/34, 506-II of IPC. The petitioner and
the co-accused abjured their guilt and took the plea that they have been
falsely been implicated in this matter. The trial Court after completion of
evidence available on record convicted them under sections 498-A and 323
of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year R.I with fine of Rs. 500/- and six
months R.I respectively with default stipulation. Being aggrieved by the
said conviction and sentence, the petitioner and the co-accused preferred
criminal appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Dharampuri,
District Dhar. The appeal was partly allowed and conviction of the
petitioner under section 323 of IPC was upheld. Being aggrieved by the
said judgment, this criminal revision is preferred before this Court.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 27-06-2023
17:56:03
4/ The petitioner have preferred this criminal revision on
several grounds but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for
the petitioner did not press this revision on merit and not assailed the
finding part of the impugned judgment. he confines his argument on the
point of sentence only and pray that since the petitioner has already
undergone 18 days jail incarceration during trial and during pendency of
this revision and he is facing trial since 2006 i.e. for a period of almost
17 years. Hence, he prays that revision be allowed and the jail sentence
awarded to the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by
him by imposing the fine amount.
5/ Learned counsel for the respondent/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 proper. Hence, finding force in the contention
raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the fact that the
petitioner is facing trial since 2006 i.e. for a period of almost 17 years
and has already undergone 18 days jail incarceration, this Court finds it
expedient to partly allow this revision petition by affirming the
conviction of the petitioner, however, reducing the sentence to the
period already undergone by imposing the fine amount.
7/ Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed and the
sentence awarded to the petitioner is hereby reduced to the jail sentence
already undergone by imposing the fine amount from Rs.2500/- to be
paid within a period of two months from today. Since the petitioner is
already on bail, his bail bond stands discharged.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 27-06-2023
17:56:03
8/ It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to comply with the
conditions as stipulated by this Court, as aforesaid, then the order of the
appellate Court shall be revived and the petitioner shall suffer the jail
sentence as already imposed by the appellate Court.
9/ A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for
necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
amol
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 27-06-2023
17:56:03
