Anopsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 15596 MP

                                                              1
                            IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT INDORE
                                                       BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
                                             ON THE 22 nd OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
                                           CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1670 of 2018

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    ANOPSINGH S/O FULSINGH RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT
                                 47 YEARS, MEGHPURA GAUD THANA SINGOLI
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    GANPATSINGH S/O ANOPSINGH RAJPUT, AGED
                                 ABOUT 28 YEARS, MEGHPURA GAUD THANA
                                 SINGOLI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    RATNSINGH S/O ANOPSINGH, AGED ABOUT 27
                                 YE A R S , MEGHPURA GAUD THANA SINGOLI
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....PETITIONERS
                           (BY SHRI MOHAMMAD IKRAM ANSARI, ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH DISTRICT
                           MAGISTRATE NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENT
                           (BY SHRI SAMEER VERMA, 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 and 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the judgment dated 07.04.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jawad, District Neemuch in Criminal Appeal No.13/2017 affirming the judgment dated 22.12.2016 passed Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 23-09-2023 12:12:39

b y the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jawad, District Neemuch in Criminal Case No.508/2015 whereby the petitioners have been convicted for offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced each of t h e appellants for three months R.I. and fine of Rs.400/- with default stipulations.

2. The petitioners preferred this criminal revision on several grounds but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners did not press this revision on merit and nor assailed the finding part of judgment. Counsel confines his argument on the point of sentence only and prays that since the petitioners have already undergone more than ten days in jail incarceration, their

sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. It is further submitted that the petitioners deserve some leniency as they have already suffered the ordeal of the trial since 2015 i.e. more than 7 years. It is further submitted that this petition be partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioners 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 petitioners 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 witnesses. Hence, no infirmity is found in the impugned order of conviction passed by the Courts below, accordingly, Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 23-09-2023 12:12:39

the same is upheld.

6. So far as the sentence of the petitioners is concerned, after the lapse of almost 8 years, the submissions made by the petitioners regarding enhancement in fine appears to be proper. The petitioners have suffered the ordeal of criminal case since 2015, this Court finds it expedient to partly allow this revision petition by affirming the conviction of the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioners is hereby reduced to the sentence already undergone b y increasing the fine amount to from Rs.400/- to Rs.1,000/- under Section 323/34 of IPC to be paid by the each petitioners within a period two months from today, out of the fine amount so deposited by the petitioners Rs.1500/- be paid to Injured - Perulal. Since the petitioners are already on bail, their bail bonds stand discharged. The amount of fine if already deposited and the amount of compensation, if already paid to the injured, shall be adjusted.

8. In case, if the petitioners fail to deposit the aforesaid enhanced fine amount within the stipulated period, they shall suffer 3-3 months S.I. each.

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

Certified copy as per rules.

(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE VS

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 23-09-2023 12:12:39