Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jail Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 August, 2024
1 CRR-357-2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
ON THE 7 th OF AUGUST, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 357 of 2006
JAIL SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Chandrakant Magarde - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri C.M. Tiwari - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed
by the applicant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.02.2006 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multai, District Betul (M.P.) in
CRA.No.147/2005 whereby the judgment dated 27.10.2005 passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Multai, District Betul (M.P.) in RCT.
No.832/1998 has been affirmed.
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on the basis of report lodged,
Crime No.205/1998 was registered against the applicant and co-accused
persons at Police Station Amla, District Betul for commission of offence
punishable under Section 294, 323 and 325 of the IPC. After completion of
investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the Competent Court.
3. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses and
appreciating the evidence led by parties, learned trial Court found the
applicant and co-accused persons guilty for the offence punishable under
Section 323 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for six months with
2 CRR-357-2006
fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation. Being aggrieved with the impugned
judgment, the applicant has preferred criminal appeal before the Appellate
Court which was also dismissed and sentence has been affirmed. Hence, this
revision has been preferred before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant expressly gave up his challenge to
the findings of the Court below so far as the conviction of the applicant is
concerned. In other words, learned counsel for the applicant accepted the
finding of conviction passed against the applicant, however, he challenged
the quantum of punishment alone. It is submitted that the applicant is the
only earning member in his family, he is the first offender and counsel
assures that he will not involve in such criminal activities in future. It is also
submitted that having regard to all circumstances which resulted in
applicant's conviction and further keeping in view the fact that the appellant
is facing the trial since the year 1998 and revision is pending since 2006,
therefore, he prayed that the jail sentence of applicant be reduced suitably.
5. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State has
submitted that after appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution,
the Court below has rightly found the applicant and co-accused persons
guilty for the aforesaid offence, therefore, no grounds are available for
reducing the jail sentence awarded to the applicant, hence, he prayed for
dismissal of the revision.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entire
re record of the case, I am inclined to allow this revision in part upon finding
some force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.
3 CRR-357-2006
7. Though, the applicant has not made any attempt to assail the finding
of his conviction on merits, yet with a view to satisfy myself as to whether
the findings of the Court below of conviction is legally sustainable or not, I
perused the record and especially therein having so perused, I am satisfied
that no case is made out to interfere in the findings of the Court below on
merits. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that the finding of the trial
court is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence
therefore, upheld the findings of conviction of applicant under Section 323 of
IPC recorded by the Court below. The applicant has suffered about nine days
of imprisonment.
8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant
and period of jail sentence and the fact that the applicant has no previous
criminal antecedents and this revision is of the year 2006 and looking to the
facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered view that
the ends of justice would be met if the applicant is sentenced for the period
already undergone by him with some enhancement in the fine amount.
9. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The impugned
conviction is hereby maintained. However, the jail sentence imposed on
applicant is reduced to the period already undergone by him and fine of
Rs.500/- is enhanced to Rs. 1,000/- under Section 323 of IPC, which shall be
deposited within one month. In default of payment of fine amount within the
stipulated period, the applicant shall suffer one month R.I. The applicant is
on bail. His bail bond stands discharged.
10. With the aforesaid modification, the present criminal revision
4 CRR-357-2006
stands partly allowed.
Let a copy of this order alongwith record be sent to the court below
for information and necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per Rules.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
mohsin
