Nyaju vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 3260 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Nyaju vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 February, 2024

Author: Prem Narayan Singh

Bench: Prem Narayan Singh

                                                              1
                            IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT INDORE
                                                     BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
                                               ON THE 5 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                           CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1870 of 2020

                           BETWEEN:-
                           NYAJU S/O MUBARIK, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
                           OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST GRAM-MULTAPURA
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI VIKAS JAIN, ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                           OFFICER THR.PS. YD NAGAR MANDSAUR (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI RAJESH JOSHI, GA FOR STATE)

                                 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 petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.06.2020 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.111/2017 whereby learned Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal, confirmed the conviction and sentence for offence under Section 323/34 and 325/34 of IPC, 1860 passed in judgment dated 24.07.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in Criminal Case No.2392/2010 and

awarded the sentence for 6-6 months R.I. with fine of Rs.2000/- with default

stipulations under Section 325/34 of IPC only.

The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision on several grounds but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press this revision on merit and nor assailed the finding part of judgment. He confined his argument on the point of sentence only and prays that since the petitioner has already undergone about 2.5 Months of jail incarceration out of one year, therefore his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. It is also submitted that the petitioner has already deposited the fine amount so awarded by the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner deserve some leniency as he has already suffered the ordeal of the trial since 2010 i.e. for a

period of 14 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 b y the injured, witnesses and medical testimony. Both the Courts below have well considered the material available on record, hence, 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 14 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 2010, 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 petitioner is hereby reduced to the sentence already undergone b y increasing the fine amount from Rs.2000/- to Rs.10,000/- under Section 325/34 of IPC to be paid by the petitioner within a period of one month from today.

8. The bail bond of the petitioner shall be discharged after deposit of the fine amount. If the petitioner fail to deposit the fine amount, he will suffer 02 months of simple imprisonment in default.

9. Out of the fine amount so deposited by the petitioner, Rs.3000/- be paid to the complaint/injured Faurkh.

10. The fine amount, if already deposited and the compensation amount if already paid to the injured shall be adjusted.

11. Judgement of the learned trial Court regarding disposal of the seized property stands affirmed.

1 2 . A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.

(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE

AMIT