Kunjbihari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 5253 MP

                                                            1
                           IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT GWALIOR
                                                      BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
                                               ON THE 29 th OF MARCH, 2023
                                          CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4578 of 2022

                          BETWEEN:-
                          KUNJBIHARI S/O SHRI DHELLE LODHI, AGED ABOUT 52
                          YEARS, R/O GRAM BADERA SOPAN P.S. PANDOKHAR
                          DISTRICT DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI AYUSH SAXENA - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                POLICE STATION PANDOKHAR DISTRICT DATIA
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    GYAN SINGH S/O KASHIRAM, AGED ABOUT 35
                                Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O
                                SOPAN BADERA SOPAN POLICE STATION
                                PANDOKHAR        DISTRICT DATIA   (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                          (SHRI NAVAL KUMAR GUPTA - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND SHRI RAJEEV
                          BUDHOLIYA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

                                This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
                                                             ORDER

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner who is aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate Court dated 28/10/2022 by which his criminal appeal No.73/2022 was dismissed thereby affirming the judgment and sentence imposed upon him by the trial Court vide order dated 29/06/2022 in Criminal Case No.124/2017 convicting the petitioner herein for a offence under Section Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA Signing time: 31-Mar-23 10:59:54 AM

325 of IPC for 01 year and Rs.500/- was imposed as fine.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has already undergone 05 months' incarceration and is still undergoing the sentence. As offence was under Section 325 of IPC, this Court in order to examine there was prospects of compromise in this case, issued notice to the defacto complainant, who has appeared through his counsel before this Court and stated that he is not interested in compromise. Under the circumstances, this petition is heard on merits.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case against petitioner is a false case and independent witness in this case has turned hostile

and he has wrongly been convicted only on the basis of statement of complainant.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State and respondent No.2 have stated that the judgment passed by the trial Court convicting the petitioner hereinabove is just and proper and that the appeal filed by him was rightly dismissed by the appellate Court. As this is a criminal revision, scope for interference is very limited and roving enquiry into the disputed question of facts is ordinarily not to be embarked upon as two Courts below have already given concurrent findings on the said facts. Scope of interference is only limited to the extent that order may be set aside if Court feels that finding is perverse and no rational person would ordinarily arrived at such a finding on the basis of material available on record.

Respondent No.2 was assaulted by the petitioner with lathi and suffered two fractures; one of humerus and one of the fifth metacarpal. Therefore, petitioner has been found guilty for offence under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced as hereinabove. MLC of respondent No.2 which is Ex.P-4 reflects Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA Signing time: 31-Mar-23 10:59:54 AM

10 injuries caused by the petitioner on respondent No.2 out of which 09 are contusions and 01 is lacerated injury. Such report has been proved by the Dr. who has prepared MLC and has been examined as PW-4 before the trial Court. Statement of respondent No.2 before the trial Court is consistent and he has clearly stated that it is the petitioner herein who has assaulted him with lathi and caused injury as described hereinabove and precious little has been brought out in his examination on the exception of minor discrepancies which do not go to the root of the prosecution's case. Independent witness has turned hostile however, it has been rightly held by the trial Court that same does not come to the aid of the petitioner as the complainant's evidence is categorical and unambiguous.

In view of what has been stated hereinabove, this Court does not find any error in the orders passed by the Courts below much less any perversity in the said orders. Therefore, this Criminal Revision is dismissed.

(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE Anil*

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA Signing time: 31-Mar-23 10:59:54 AM