Raju Pareta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 7721 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. 1743 of 2023

        Between:-

        RAJU PARETA S/O SHRI KANHAIYALAL, AGED
        ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O CHHEEPA MOHALLA,
        SHEOPUR DISTRICT SHEOPUR (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....PETITIONER
        (BY SHRI VIVEK KUMAR MISHRA - 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 petitioner 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 petitioner has

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 petitioner along with other accused persons forcibly entered

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

accused Jitendra Pareta gave a knife below over the elbow of his left

hand, Mahaveer gave Danda blow and petitioner assaulted him by kicks

and fists. On complaint, FIR Ex-P/1 was registered against petitioner

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,

petitioner abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. Prosecution examined 7

witnesses in support of its case and in defence, accused/petitioner has

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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner that the Courts

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

It is further submitted that as per the allegation itself, the complainant

Sujeet Garg (PW-1) did not support the story of prosecution in his Court

statement so far as present petitioner -Raju Pareta is concerned. In his

Court statement, he nowhere refers the role of present petitioner. As

submitted, an application was also moved by the complainant Sujeet

Garg to compromise the matter with the petitioner. Therefore, on this

count also petitioner made out his case for undergone. There is material

contradictions and omissions between the statements of prosecution

witnesses and such aspect has not been considered by the trial Court.

Thus, the trial Court erred in convicting the petitioner.

6. It is further submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the fact

that complainant did not refer any role to the present petitioner in his

Court statement and petitioner is also ready to pay compensation/fine at

higher side in view of the provisions of Section 357 of Cr.P.C., his case

for undergone be considered. Thus, prayer for undergone has been made

by reducing the jail sentence already undergone by him 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 petitioner is

ready to pay enhanced fine then only his case for undergone may be

considered.

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

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

complainant by kicks and fists although complainant dis not refer the

role of present petitioner in his Court statement and also preferred

compromise application to compromise the case with the petitioner. The

injury of knife blow caused to the complainant is not attributed to the

present petitioner, it is attributed to another accused.

10. According to prosecution case, petitioner actively participated in

assaulting the complainant and earlier his role is duly assigned by the

complainant in FIR and Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement. It is the

complainant who did not take his name in his Court statement and

earlier also shown his indulgence by preferring compromise application

to settle the matter with the petitioner.

11. In view of the above, looking to the fact that petitioner has been duly

named in the FIR and his role is also assigned by the complainant in

statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and other witnesses also refer the

role of present petitioner in commission of crime, this Court is of the

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

convicting the petitioner. 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 petitioner also

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

sentence by the appellate Court, petitioner is in jail and suffered almost 24

days' incarceration and further he has 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 petitioner be considered for the

sentence which is already undergone by him, for which he is 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 petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by

him, 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. Petitioner is directed to pay compensation of

Rs.1,000/- within two months from today while giving undertaking

before the trial Court that if he fails to pay Rs.1,000/- (in addition to the

fine amount imposed by the Courts below), then trial Court would

proceed against him to serve remaining part of jail sentence. It is made

clear that this benefit of undergone has been given to the petitioner in

peculiar facts and circumstances of the case where petitioner 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. Petitioner is in jail. He be released forthwith.

14. Resultantly, the revision petition preferred by the petitioner 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 10:53:53 +05'30'