Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sahab Singh Kourav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 August, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1 CRR-4319-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 7 th OF AUGUST, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4319 of 2022
SAHAB SINGH KOURAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bhupendra Singh Dhakad - Advocate for the revisionist.
Shri Ajay Kumar Nirankari - Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani
This revision petition has been filed by revisionist/complainant for
enhancement of the sentence being aggrieved by the judgment dated
14.9.2022 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Datia, in S.T.No.40/2020
whereby respondents No.2 to 4 have been though convicted under Section
326 and 323/34 or 326/34 and 323 of IPC, but they have been only
sentenced to six months RI with fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 326 or
326/34 of IPC.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist/complainant that
learned trial Court after examining the evidence available on record though
rightly convicted respondents No.2 to 4/accused persons for the offence
2 CRR-4319-2022
under Section 326 or 326/34 of IPC, but they have been sentenced to lesser
punishment i.e. only for six months rigorous imprisonment with fine. It is
also submitted that revisionist has been beaten blue and black by the
respondents /accused persons and revisionist could not walk due to the
injuries sustained. As many as 11 injuries have been inflicted to the
revisionist. No valid reason has been assigned to award such lesser sentence.
Therefore, prayed to enhance the sentence awarded to the
respondents/accused persons and punish them with severe punishment.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the learned trial
Court has rightly and appropriately sentenced the respondents for the offence
they have been convicted. There is no ground for interference.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record.
5. Section 372 of Cr.P.C. provides for appeal by the victim but such appeal
cannot be filed for enhancement of the sentence. Please refer the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Parvinder Kansal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and
another, (2020) 19 SCC 496.
6. Since no appeal lies under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of
the sentence, therefore, revisionist/victim has filed this criminal revision
which is maintainable as held by Division Bench of Bombay High Court in
case of Anand Singh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1186 .
7. Perusal of the record shows that when complainant ousted goats of
accused Uttam from his field, then accused Uttam and other accused persons
reached there and uttered filthy language. When complainant objected, then
Signatureaccused Uttam inflicted injury on right hand of the victim by means of axe.
Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
Thereafter remaining accused persons caused Marpeet with Lathi. As a
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 12-08-2024
10:38:22 AM
3 CRR-4319-2022
consequence, the victim has sustained as many as 7 injuries out of two were
caused by sharp cutting object, but that too on right palm. On x-ray
examination, fracture was found of first metacarpal bone of thumb of right
hand.
8. The evidence on record transpires that the incident suddenly occurred on
a trivial issue when victim ousted goats of accused persons from his field, in
that moment, in fit of rage the incident took place without there being any
previous enmity between the parties. The trial Court has given reasons for
awarding sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment with fine that on
trivial issue such incident took place, there is no previous criminal
antecedents of the accused persons and they are the first offenders, therefore,
after considering the facts and circumstances and age of the accused persons,
the impugned sentence is awarded.
9. In our considered opinion having regard to the cause and the way in
which incident took place and also having regard to the nature of grievous
injury on thumb of right hand and other injuries are simple in nature, it is not
found that learned trial Court has awarded insufficient or lesser sentence to
the present respondents, instead it is found that learned trial Court by
adopting reformative approach has awarded sufficient sentence.
10. The quantum of sentence cannot be interfered with unless it is found
that it was awarded by the trial Court without considering the facts and
circumstances and without assigning reasons. No such grounds found in this
case. Therefore, the impugned sentence awarded to the present respondents is
not found to be inappropriate or lesser, rather it is found proportionate to the
crime in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. No appeal has been
4 CRR-4319-2022
filed by the State under Section 377 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the
sentence.
11. In case of Pramod Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. decided on 4.9.2023
in Criminal Appeal arising from SLP (Cri) No.2190/2023 it is held by the
Apex Court while considering various judgments on this point that while
imposing sentence, aggravating and mitigating circumstances of a case are to
be taken into consideration. The goal of sentencing can be a combination of
incapacitation, specific deterrence, general deterrence, rehabilitation, or
restoration. The Hon'ble Apex Court inter alia on the ground of appellant to
be the first offender has reduced the sentence.
12. In the backdrop of aforesaid discussion, in our considered opinion,
there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment of the trial
Court. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE JUDGE
ms/-
