Mukaddar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 19039 MP

                                                             1
                           IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT INDORE
                                                    BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
                                             ON THE 9 th OF NOVEMBER, 2023
                                          CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2907 of 2022

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.    MUKADDAR S/O MOHAMMAD KHAN, AGED
                                ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
                                VILLAGE ROLA POLICE STATION RINGNOD
                                DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    MUMTAJ D/O MUNSHI KHAN, AGED ABOUT 25
                                YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR VILLAGE ROLA,
                                P.S. RINGNOD, DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....PETITIONERS
                          (SHRI HARISH TRIPATHI - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                          OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION RINGNOD
                          DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENT
                          (SHRI VISHAL PANWAR - PANEL LAWYER)

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

With consent of the parties heard finally.

1. This criminal revision under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.07.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,Jaora District-Ratlam in Criminal Appeal No.09/2019 whereby learned Sessions Judge partly allowed appeal by affirming the conviction for offence under Section 325/34 of IPC, 1860 and sentenced to 06 Signature Not Verified Signed by: AKANKSHA LAHORIYA Signing time: 11/9/2023 6:27:42 PM

Months from R.I each and with fine amount of Rs.1,000/- each with default stipulations.

2. T h e petitioners have preferred this criminal revision on several grounds but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners neither press this revision on merit and nor assail the finding part of judgment. He confined his argument on the point of sentence only and prays that since the petitioners have already undergone about 24 days of jail incarceration, therefore their sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. It is also submitted that the petitioners have already deposited the fine amount so awarded by the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that the petitioners deserve some

leniency as they have already suffered the ordeal of the trial since 2014 i.e. for a period of 08 years. 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.

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

4. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be just and proper.

5. However, the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court has not committed any error in appreciation of evidence available on record. Further, it is found that both the courts below considered the evidence available on record and correctly found that the case of the prosecution is well supported by the injured, witnesses and medical testimony. Both the Courts below have well considered the material available on record, hence,

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AKANKSHA LAHORIYA Signing time: 11/9/2023 6:27:42 PM

no infirmity is found in the impugned order of conviction passed by both the Courts below, accordingly, the same is upheld.

6. So far as the sentence of the petitioner is concerned, after the lapse of almost 08 years, the submissions have been made by the petitioner regarding enhancement fine appear to be proper. The petitioner has suffered the ordeal of criminal case since 2014, this Court finds it expedient to partly allow this revision petition by affirming the conviction of the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioners is hereby reduced to the sentence already undergone by increasing the fine amount from Rs.1,000/-each to Rs.10,000/- each under Section 325 of IPC to be paid by each of the petitioners within a period of one month from today. Out of the fine amount so deposited by the petitioner, Rs.5,000/- be paid to Injured- Kachrulal under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. by the trial Court. The fine amount, if already deposited as well as the compensation amount if any paid to the injured, shall be adjusted. The bail bond of the petitioners shall be discharged after deposit of the fine amount. If the petitioner fail to deposit the fine amount, they will suffer 02 months of simple imprisonment in default.

8 . A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.

(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE akanksha

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AKANKSHA LAHORIYA Signing time: 11/9/2023 6:27:42 PM