Hari Vilas And Ors. vs The State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 7640 MP

                                1
 IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT GWALIOR
                         BEFORE
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                      ON THE 10 th OF MAY, 2023
                CRIMINAL REVISION No. 775 of 2004

BETWEEN:-
      1. HARI VILAS SON OF SHRI JODHA RAM, AGED
      50   YEARS,    CASTE   TYAGI  OCCUPATION
      AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JAITPUR,
      TEHSIL JAURA, DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

      2. PRABHU DAYAL S/O JODHA RAM, AGED ABOUT
      40   YEARS,   CASTE-   TYAGI   OCCUPATION
      AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JAITPUR,
      TEHSIL JAURA, DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

      3. JASWANT SINGH S/O POORAN SINGH, AGED
      ABOUT 35 YEARS, CASTE- TYAGI, OCCUPATION
      AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JAITPUR,
      TEHSIL JAURA, DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA
      PRADESH)



                                                           .....APPLICANTS
(SHRI PRABAL SOLANKI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANTS)

AND
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH POLICE STATION
BAGCHINI DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                          .....RESPONDENT
( SHRI PRAMOD PACHAURI- LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT- STATE

      Th is revision coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                 ORDER

This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC

h a s been filed by applicants against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03-12-2004 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Morena (MP) in Criminal Appeal No.276 of 2004, modifying the order of sentence dated 25-09-2004 passed by the Court of JMFC, Jaura, Morena in Criminal Case No.66 of 1994 sentencing Prabhudayal ( herein applicant No.2) for one year RI with fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 326 of IPC instead of sentencing him for three years RI and one year RI with fine of Rs.500- 500/- awarded by trial Court for offence under Section 326 and 452 of IPC whereas sentencing rest of the applicants for one year RI with fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 326/34 of IPC instead of sentencing them of

three years RI with fine of Rs.500/- awarded by trial Court and confirming sentence of one year RI with fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 452 of IPC awarded by trial Court.

Prosecution story, in short, is that on 02-12-1993 complainant Ramdehi (PW2) lodged a report at police station Bagchini alleging therein that on 01-120- 1993 he was sitting inside her house. All accused persons came there and told her for vacating the house. When she told that this is of her house and she cannot vacate the house. Thereafter, all accused persons entered in her house. Accused Prabhu inflicted hasiya blow on the little finger of left hand by which blood started oozing out. Accused Pooran (since dead during pendency of this revision) inflicted lathi blow on her back and accused Harivilas also inflicted lathi blow on left hand and accused Jaswant Singh inflicted lathi blow on left hand of complainant by which she sustained bruise. On hearing her cries, witness Pancham and Sidharth came there and intervened in matter. At the time of fleeing away from place of occurrence, all accused persons told her for

vacating the house and abused in filthy languages. On the basis of such report, Crime No.186 of 1993 was registered. Injured- complainant Ramdehi (PW2) was medically examined. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation and other formalities, charge sheet was filed before the Court of JMFC. After conclusion of trial and after marshalling the evidence, the trial Court convicted the applicants for offence under Sections 326, 326/34 and 452 of IPC and sentenced them three years RI and one year RI with fine of Rs.500-500 with default stipulation. Being dissatisfied, applicants preferred a criminal appeal before lower appellate Court and lower appellate Court vide impugned judgment modified the sentence of the applicants by confirming the conviction passed by trial Court for offences as mentioned above.

It is submitted by counsel for the applicants that both the Courts below have committed an error in appreciating evidence of prosecution witnesses. They have been falsely implicated due to previous enmity that one Pancham was murdered by complainant party in the year 1991 and Prabhu Dayal is the witness in that case and to stop Prabhu Dayal for not giving evidence in the Court, a false medical report has been prepared by complainant in consultation with doctor and police. It is further contended that there are so many contradictions and omissions in the statements of witnesses. No independent witness has been examined by prosecution in support its case. The evidence of

complainant- injured is not corroborated by medical evidence and the prosecution is totally failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is further contended that as per medical evidence simple injuries were found on the body of the injured and no fracture was found, therefore, offence under Section 326 of IPC is not made out against applicants. So far as offence under Section 452 of IPC is concerned, on the alleged date of incident, complainant-

injured was neither present in house nor she was residing at there, therefore, the prosecution story creates a doubt. Under these circumstances, the applicants deserves acquittal by setting aside the impugned judgments passed by Courts below.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused records of the Courts below.

In para 17 of the impugned judgment, it is mentioned by the lower Appellate Court that Dr.KK Dixit (PW1) who had conducted X-ray of injured complainant Ramdehi (PW2) on 02-12-1993 found fracture in the litter finger of left hand of injured and the report is Ex.P2. This witness admitted that he has not shown the fracture or the place with red ink in X-ray plate. He himself said that it was not necessary to do so. When the fact of grievous hurt has been revealed by medical witness by examining X-ray plate and seeing the report, then in such a situation, it cannot be assumed that the fact of grievous hurt is not proved. No such evidence has come on record to show that any such report was deliberately given by doctor by the consultation of complainant. It cannot be also assumed that a false report regarding medical examination has been prepared by complainant in consultation with doctor and police. After re- appreciating the evidence lower Appellate Court has rightly passed impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence by modifying the sentence awarded by the trial Court for offence committed by the applicants.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Duli Chand vs. Delhi Administration as reported in (1975) 4 SCC 649 has held that the jurisdiction of the High Court in a criminal revision is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon a re-appreciation of evidence. The said judgment has been

followed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand and others as reported in (2004) 7 SCC 659.

Accordingly, present criminal revision fails and is hereby dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03-12-2004 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Morena (MP) in Criminal Appeal No.276 of 2004 is hereby confirmed.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE MKB

MAHENDRA BARIK 2023.05.11 16:11:31 +05'30'