Gulab Singh Kanwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 18962 MP

                                   1
 IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT JABALPUR
                         BEFORE
        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
                   ON THE 8 th OF NOVEMBER, 2023
                CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4619 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
GULAB SINGH KANWAR S/O SITARAM SINGH
KANWAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
BHURKA P.S. AND TAH. JAISINGHNAGAR DISTRICT
SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                             .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI J.L. SONI - ADVOCATE)

AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
S T A T I O N JAISINGHNAGAR DISTRICT SHAHDOL
(MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                            .....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI P.C. CHATTARJEE - PANEL LAWYER)

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

With consent of the parties heard finally.

2. Applicant/accused was convicted for offence under Section 452 of IPC and Section 323 of IPC vide judgement dated 04.12.2021 in RCT No. 437/2014 by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaisinghnagar District Shahdol whereby the applicant was sentenced of one year RI with fine of Rs. 100/- for offence under Section 452 of IPC and six months RI with fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 323 of IPC. In Criminal Appeal No. 2/2022, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaisinghnagar, District-Shahdol, vide

judgment dated 23.08.2023, affirming the conviction and partly allowed the appeal on the point of sentence whereby he reduced the sentence for offence under Section 452 of IPC from one year R.I. to three months R.I. and for the offence under Section 323 of IPC from six months R.I. to three months R.I. but maintained the fine amount as imposed by the learned JMFC.

3. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the both the Courts below, applicant has preferred this present Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C

4. The prosecution case in nutshell is that on 24.06.2014 at about 07:00PM in village Bhuraka under Police Station Jaisinghnagar District-Shahdol

when complainant was alone at her home, petitioner/accused came at her house and hurled filthy abuse. When she objected for the same, the petitioner tress- passed the house and slapped on her left cheek. She fell down on the ground and when she raised alarm, Meerabai, Kusum Mishra, Govind Mishra and Asmiya Bai came and intervened. Thereafter, petitioner fled away threatening to kill her. She lodged FIR at Police Station Jainsinghnagar, Shahdol at crime No.234/2014 under Section 452, 323, 294 and 506 of IPC. Thereafter, she was sent for medical examination. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed.

5. The petitioner absurd his guilty. He did not take any specific plea but has stated that he was falsely implicated in the case on the ground of animosity. However, no defence evidence was adduced.

6. After considering the prosecution evidence, the learned JMFC, Jaisinghnagar, Shahdol has convicted and sentenced the petitioner as mentioned above.

7. The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision on the ground that

the sole eye witness has not supported the prosecution case. There is a delay in lodging the FIR and the injuries to found the person of complainant are also simple in nature. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statement of the complainant. There is also a land dispute also between the petitioner and complainant. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press this revision on merit and not assails the finding part of judgment. He confines his argument on the point of sentence only and prays that since the petitioner has already undergone 78 days in jail incarceration, therefore, his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. It is further submitted that this petition be partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the fine amount.

8 . Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supports the impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of this revision.

9 . After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that a concurrent finding was given by both the Courts below, relating to the conviction, dependent upon the factual position. There is no basis by which any interference can be done in the concurrent findings of conviction. However, looking to the situation of the petitioner and also considering the fact that

genesis of the incident is trivial in nature, this Court finds it expedient to partly allow this revision petition by affirming the conviction of the petitioner, reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by him in the custody. There is no change in the fine amount.

10. The applicant is in custody and therefore, office is directed to

arrange for issuance of a supersession warrant, so that the applicant may be released from the jail as early as possible.

11 . A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court as well as to the appellate Court alongwith their records for information and compliance without delay.

C.C.as per rules.

(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE vibha Digitally signed by VIBHA PACHORI Date: 2023.11.09 16:29:12 +05'30'