Ramesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 4682 MP

                                                           1
                           IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT INDORE
                                                     BEFORE
                                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                                              ON THE 27 th OF MARCH, 2023
                                          CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1365 of 2014

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.    RAMESH S/O RUPAJI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
                                NANDNA, TEH. SUSNER, DISTRICT AGAR
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    SHYAMA S/O RUPAJI, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
                                NANDNA, TEHSIL - SUSNER, DISTRICT AGAR
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....APPLICANTS
                          (BOTH THE APPLICANTS ARE PRESENT IN PERSON)

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                          OFFICER THRU. P.S. SUSNER, DISTT. AGAR (MADHYA
                          PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENT
                          (BY SHRI HEMANT SHARMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                This revision coming on for direction, this day, th e court passed the

                          following:
                                                            ORDER

T he applicants have preferred this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.Â) being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15/10/2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Susner, District Agar (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.269/2016, whereby the judgment of conviction dated 05/04/2013 and sentence passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Susner,

Signature Not Verified District Agar (M.P.) in Criminal Case No.156/2009 has been affirmed, whereby Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 3/28/2023 1:04:04 PM

both the applicants have been convicted under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ÂœIPC) and sentenced to undergo 01-01 year Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000-2,000/- with usual default stipulation.

The prosecution story in short is that on 26/06/2004 at about 06:00 AM in while the complainant Ramlal was going to answer the natural call, at that time present applicants Ramesh and Shyama came there armed with wooden sticks and they have intercepted the complainant due to some previous enmity they started beating him by wooden sticks. Due to which, the complainant Ramlal sustained injuries over his head, writ of left hand, back and both legs also. When the complainant shouted, Kanwarlal and Prabhulal came there and by

seeing them present applicants fled away from the spot. Complainant Ramlal launched an FIR at Police Station Susner. His MLC was conducted by Dr. D. S. Parmar (PW-4) and after x-ray analysis fracture was found in left arm of the complainant. Investigating Officer prepared a spot map and recovered wooden sticks from the possession of the applicants and thereafter, accused persons were arrested.

After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the applicants / accused persons before the JMFC, Susner and the trial Court has framed the charges under Section 341, 323, 294, 506 and 325/34 of the IPC against the applicants. The applicants abjured their guilt and pleaded complete innocence. The trial Court after considering the submissions advanced by both the parties scrutinized the entire evidence available on record and convicted the applicants / accused persons under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced each of them to under go 01 year RI with fine of Rs.2,000/- with usual default stipulation.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 3/28/2023 1:04:04 PM

Being aggrieved by the said conviction, the applicants have preferred a Criminal Appeal before the ASJ, Susner but the same was also dismissed by affirming the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court, thereafter, the applicants have preferred present criminal revision before this Court.

The applicants have preferred the present revision on several grounds but during the course of arguments applicants, who are present in person, submitted that they do not want to press this criminal revision on merits and are not assailing the conviction part of the judgment but they confined their argument only to the extent of quantum of sentence part. Their only prayer is that their sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by them as they have suffered jail incarceration for more than one month i.e. from 15/10/2014 to 22/11/2014. Applicants are facing trial since 2004 and they are regularly marking their presence before the Court. They are poor persons and are not having any criminal background. Therefore, their sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

Learned counsel for the respondent / State opposes the revision and prays for its rejection by submitting that both the Courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicants and the sentence in question is sufficient.

Heard applicants as well as learned counsel for the respondent/State and

considered their arguments and perused the record and evidence produced by both the parties.

In view of the above submissions, although the conviction has not been challenged, but perusal of the evidence available on record also justifies the judgment of conviction passed by both the Courts below.

Signature Not Verified So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the submissions made Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 3/28/2023 1:04:04 PM

b y applicants appears to be just and proper. The applicants have already suffered jail incarceration for more than one month during the trial as well as during the pendency of the appeal. At the time of incident, applicants were young persons of 30 and 25 years of age. They are not having any criminal background. They are facing trial since 2004. Therefore, it would be appropriate to reduce the jail sentence awarded to them.

Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the applicants is hereby reduced to the sentence already undergone b y them. Since the applicants are already on bail, their bail bonds stand discharged.

Disposal of the property shall be as per the order of the trial Court. Let a copy of this order along with record of both the Courts below be sent back to the concerned Courts for information and necessary compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Tej

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 3/28/2023 1:04:04 PM