Jitendra @ Fadra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 14462 MP

                                                            1
                           IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT INDORE
                                                      BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                                            ON THE 4 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
                                          CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1117 of 2015

                          BETWEEN:-
                          JITENDRA @ FADRA S/O IDA, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
                          OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST AND LABOUR R/O
                          SADADBAN, FULSINGH FALYA, TEHSIL - KASRAVAD,
                          DISTT. KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI HARISH CHANDRA TRIPATHI - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          THROUGH P.S. KASRAVAD,
                          DISTRICT KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENT
                          (BY SHRI SURENDAR GUPTA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

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

The petitioner/accused has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 r/w S.401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "Cr.P.C.") against the impugned judgment dated 21.8.2015 passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Mandleshwar (West Nimar) in Criminal Appeal No.155/2015, whereby the judgment dated 21.5.2015 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No.337/2011 has been modified and the conviction of the petitioner under Section 325 of IPC has been maintained and his jail sentence is reduced from 1 year R.I. to 6 months R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/-, Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Signing time: 05-Sep-23 10:22:22 AM

with usual default stipulation.

2/ As per the prosecution story, on 17.3.2011 at about 9.00 a.m. when the complainant Siraj along with his brother salim went to his agricultural field, he found that cattle of the petitioner/accused were grazing his wheat crop. When he objected, then accused Jitendra started abusing in filthy language and pelted stone upon him, due to which he sustained injury on the right ankle joint. Incident was witnessed by Salim and Ajit. Complainnt lodged FIR at P.S. Kasrawad, District Khargone. His MLC was conducted by Dr. G.S. Mujalda (PW-7) and he opined that the victim sustained bony injury over his right ankle joint.

3/ After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner/accused before the Addl. CJM, Kasrawad, who has framed the charge under Section 325 of IPC against the petitioner. Petitioner abjured his guilt and took a plea that he has been falsely implicated in this matter. The trial Court after considering the submissions advanced by both the parties and scrutinizing the entire evidence available on record, convicted the petitioner/accused under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/-, with usual default stipulation. Being aggrieved by the said conviction, petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal before the 1st ASJ, Mandleshwar, which was partly allowed and the judgment passed by the learned trial court was modified and the jail sentence of the petitioner is reduced from 1 year R.I. to 6 months R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/-, with usual default stipulation. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, petitioner has preferred this criminal revision before this Court.

4/ The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision on several grounds but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner did not Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Signing time: 05-Sep-23 10:22:22 AM

press this revision on merit. He did not assail the finding part of the judgment. He has confined his arguments on the quantum of sentence only. His sole prayer is that the imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone, as the petitioner has already suffered about 23 days imprisonment and he is facing trial since 2011. During the trial as well as during pendency of the criminal appeal and this revision, he has cooperated. It is further contended that the petitioner is a poor person. At the time of incident petitioner was a young person of 19 years. Incident took place all of a sudden due to the grazing of cattle in the field of complainant. Petitioner is not having any criminal past. Therefore, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone.

5/ Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the criminal revision and prayed for its dismissal by submitting that the court below has rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner.

6/ Learned counsel for both the parties heard at length and perused the entire record.

7/ In view of the above submissions, although the conviction has not been challenged, perusal of the evidence also justified the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court as well as the first appellate court.

8/ So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the submission

made by learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be just and proper. The petitioner has remained in jail from 21.8.2015 to 14.9.2015. At the time of incident he was 19 years young person and the incident took place all of a sudden. Petitioner has no criminal background. Therefore, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Signing time: 05-Sep-23 10:22:22 AM

petitioner.

9/ Having regard to the aforesaid, this criminal revision is partly allowed by maintaining the conviction, but reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner. The petitioner is on bail. His bail and surety bonds stand discharged.

10/ The order regarding disposal of the property, as pronounced by the trial Court, is also affirmed.

11/ Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment along with the record of the trial Court as well as record of the first appellate court, to the concerned trial Court for its necessary compliance.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE trilok

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Signing time: 05-Sep-23 10:22:22 AM