Pappu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 7070 MP

                               1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        AT I N D O R E
                          BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA

                 ON THE 1st OF MAY, 2023

           CRIMINAL REVISION No. 378 of 2016

BETWEEN:-
   PAPPU S/O BABULAL, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, GRAM
1.
   DHANNAD, P.S. BETMA, DISTT. INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
   VISHNU S/O MUKUND, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, GRAM
2. DHANNAD, P.S. BETMA, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
                                             .....APPLICANTS
(SHRI A.K. SAXENA, ADVOCATE FOR APPLICANTS)

AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER
THRU. P.S. BETMA, DISTT. INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                   .....NON-APPLICANT/STATE
(SHRI TARUN PAGARE, ADVOCATE FOR STATE)
      This revision coming on for admission this day, the court
passed the following:

                            ORDER

The present criminal revision has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vide judgment dated 18.03.2016 passed by Ninth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Appeal No.553/2015 whereby the learned trial Court has dismissed the appeal and maintained the judgment dated 15.07.2015 passed by JMFC, Indore in Criminal Case No.42 of 2008,

whereby the applicants have been convicted under Section 323/34 of IPC and sentenced for one-one year RI and fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, SI for fifteen days.

Counsel for the applicants submits that the matter has already been compromised with the applicant No.2 Vishnu and the compromise has been verified by the Principal Registrar in compliance to the order passed by this Court. So far as the applicant No.2 Vishnu is concerned, the offence has been compounded and revision may be allowed.

Counsel for the State supports the order of conviction but does not dispute the compromise.

In view of the compromise, so far as the revision is concerned for applicant No.2 Vishnu, the same is allowed and he is acquitted from the charges.

So far as applicant No.1 Pappu is concerned, counsel for the applicant No.1 submits that he has already undergone the jail sentence of 17 days and instead of jail sentence, the same may be reduced to the period already undergone and fine amount may be enhanced. The incident is said to have taken place in the year 2008. The applicants were on bail during trial and they have not misused the liberty so granted to them. They maintained good relation with the other side. Hence no purpose would be served in sending the applicants behind bars after such a long period.

Considering the same, so far as the applicant No.1 is

concerned, the revision is partly allowed. The jail sentence of the applicant No.1 is reduced to the period already undergone and the fine amount of Rs.1000/- is enhanced to Rs.3000/- in respect of applicant No.1. and the said amount shall be deposited within two months from today. The enhanced fine amount shall be paid to the complainant/victim - Shanti Bai by the trial Court. The enhanced fine amount shall be deposited within sixty days from today before the trial Court. In case, if the enhanced amount is not deposited within the said period, the applicant No.1 shall undergo the remaining jail sentence as per the order of appellate Court.

With the aforesaid, the revision is partly allowed and disposed of.

Certified copy as per Rules.

                                                  (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
   Arun/-                                               JUDGE

Digitally signed by ARUN
NAIR
Date: 2023.05.01
19:07:58 +05'30'