Jitendra Paretha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 7715 MP

                                                                                                             1

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                            AT GWALIOR
                                                 BEFORE

                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK

                                    ON THE 11th OF MAY, 2023

                          CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1760 of 2023

        Between:-

1.      JITENDRA PARETA S/O SHRI HEMRAJ PARETA,
        AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
2.      MAHAVEER PARETA S/O SHRI RAMGOPAL
        PARETA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
        BOTH RESIDENT OF GANDHI NAGAR DISTT.
        SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....PETITIONERS
        (BY MS. PRAKSHI BANSAL - ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF
        SHRI ANSHU GUPTA - ADVOCATE)
        AND

         STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
         THROUGH POLICE STATION        SHEOPUR
         DISTRICT SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                                   .....RESPONDENT

        (BY SHRI KULDEEP SINGH - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      This revision coming on for hearing under direction matter this day, the
court passed the following:
                                  ORDER

1. The present revision petition under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. is

preferred by the petitioners against the judgment of conviction and order

of sentence dated 19-04-2023 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions

Judge, Sheopur in Criminal Appeal No.66/2022 confirming the judgment

of conviction passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Junior Division,

Sheopur in Criminal Case No.1200302/2016 whereby petitioners have

been convicted as under:

S.No.          Offence u/s         Imprisonment       Fine      Default
                                                                Stipulation
1          324/34 of IPC           6 months' RI   Rs.1,000/-    1 month's RI
2          452 of IPC              1 year's RI    Rs.1,000/-    1 month's RI

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that complainant Sujeet Garg

lodged an FIR to the effect that on 19-03-2016 he was at his house at

that time petitioners along with other accused person forcibly entered

into his house and started hurling filthy abuses and on objection,

petitioner No.1 -Jitendra Paereta gave a knife below over the elbow of

his left hand, petitioner No.2- Mahaveer gave Danda blow and another

accused assaulted him by kicks and fists. On complaint, FIR Ex-P/1 was

registered against petitioners and other persons at Crime No.90/2016

under Sections 323, 294, 452, 506, , 34 of IPC. MLC of complainant

Sujeet Garg (PW-1) was conducted in which he was shown to have

received injury of on elbow of his left hand measuring 4cm x 0.5cm x

0.5cm. Matter was investigated and challan was filed in the matter under

Sections 452, 323, 294, 507, 324, 34 of IPC.

3. Before the trial Court -Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sheopur,

petitioners abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. Prosecution examined

7 witnesses in support of its case and in defence, accused/petitioners

have been examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. After recording of

evidence ocular as well as documentary and hearing the submission of

counsel for the parties, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the

petitioners for offence under Sections 324 and 452 of IPC and sentenced

him as referred above.

4. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial

Court has been challenged by the petitioners by preferring criminal

appeal. The appellate Court dismissed the said appeal upholding the

conviction recorded by learned trial Court as referred above.

5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the Courts

below erred in convicting the petitioners for the offence referred above.

There is material contradictions and omissions between the statements of

prosecution witnesses and such aspect has not been considered by the

trial Court. Eye-witness who was stated to be present on the spot i.e.

Jitendra Jat (PW-3) failed to explain his presence at the house of

complainant at the time of occurrence of incident. No other independent

witness supported the prosecution case. Father of complainant Devendra

Kumar Garg (PW-2) who supported the case of prosecution is an

interested witnesses, therefore, testimony of these interested witnesses

cannot be taken to be trued. Thus, the Courts below erred in convicting

the petitioners.

6. Alternatively, it is submitted that looking to the nature of offence,

conviction and jail sentence and in view of the provisions of Section 357

of Cr.P.C. petitioners are ready to pay compensation/fine at higher side.

Thus, prayer for undergone has been made by reducing the jail sentence

already undergone by them by enhancing the fine amount as this Court

deems fit.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the

prayer, supported the judgments passed by the Courts below and prayed

for dismissal of petition. However, he fairly accepted that if petitioners

are ready to pay enhanced fine then only their case for undergone may

be considered.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. It is a case where petitioners are facing the allegation of assaulting the

complainant by knife and Danda respectively. The aforesaid assault to

the complainant -Sujeet Garg (PW-1) is corroborated by medical

evidence as according to MLC, complainant sustained injury by a short

cutting weapon over his left forearm measuring 4cm x 0.5cm x 0.5cm. In

the case in hand, complainant sustained injuries caused by the petitioners

and he stood firm to his version which is supported by MLC proved by

Dr. Sanjay Kumar Mangal (PW-5) and his father Devendra Kumar Garg

(PW-2).

10. Dr. Sanjay Kumar Mangal (PW-5) who conducted MLC of the

complainant Sujeet Garg (PW-1) opined that complainant sustained an

injury over his left hand which is caused by a sharp cutting weapon but

the injury sustained by the complainant was simple in nature. Thus, the

version of complainant in relation to sustaining injury by the accused

persons is duly corroborated through medical evidence. Eye witness

Jitendra Jat (PW-3) and father Devendra Kumar Garg (PW-2) also

supported the version of the complainant.

11. In view of the above, looking to the testimony of complainant Sujeet

Garg (PW-1) supported by Jitendra Jat (PW-3), Devendra Kumar Garg

(PW-2) and Dr. Sanjay Kumar Mangal (PW-5), this Court is of the

considered view that both the Courts below did not commit any error in

convicting the petitioners. Government prosecution witnesses also

supported the case of prosecution. Prosecution succeeded in proving its

case beyond reasonable doubt. The Courts below duly vetted the rival

submissions and thereafter passed the impugned judgment and

conviction against the petitioners. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

K. Prakashan Vs. P.K.Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258 and T.

Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 SCC 401 held that if

two views are possible and one view is taken by the trial Court after due

appreciation of evidence then unless sheer perversity or illegality crept

in to the judgment of trial Court, the scope of interference is limited.

12. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners also

submitted that from the date of passing of judgment of conviction and

sentence by the appellate Court, petitioners are in jail and suffered almost

24 days' incarceration and further they have already suffered 7 years' long

ordeal of trial and minimum sentence is not prescribed for offence under

Sections 324 and 452 of IPC, therefore, case of petitioners be considered

for the sentence which is already undergone by them, for which they are

ready to pay compensation at higher side. That will suitably compensate

the complainant.

13. In view of the above, considering the facts and circumstances of the case,

jail sentence of petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by

them, maintaining the conviction recorded by the Courts below and in view

of Section 357 of Cr.P.C., fine amount which has been imposed by the

Courts below is enhanced. Petitioners are directed to pay compensation of

Rs.5,000/- each (total Rs.10,000/-) within two months from today while

giving undertaking before the trial Court that if they remain failed to pay

Rs.5,000/- each (in addition to the fine amount imposed by the Courts

below), then trial Court would proceed against them to serve remaining

part of jail sentence. If petitioners/ revisionists do not deposit the amount

as directed by this Court within the stipulated time then they shall have to

serve the remaining jail sentence, for which the Courts below sentenced

them. It is made clear that this benefit of undergone has been given to

the petitioners in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case where

petitioners suffered almost 24 days incarceration and suffered ordeal of

trial for 7 years. The compensation amount shall be paid to the

complainant after due verification. Petitioners are in jail. They be

released forthwith.

14. Resultantly, the revision petition preferred by the petitioners stands

disposed of in above terms.

15. Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for information and

necessary compliance.

(Anand Pathak) Judge Anil*

ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA 2023.05.13 18:21:41 +05'30'