Sanjay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 3600 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sanjay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 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
                                            CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1893 of 2020

                           BETWEEN:-
                           SANJAY S/O MOHANLAL, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
                           VILLAGE - PIPLODA BAGLA, P.S. - NAGDA (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                           (SHRI NILESH DAVE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER ).

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                           OFFICER THROUGH P.S. NAGDA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                           ( SHRI VISHAL SANOTHIYA APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ADVOCATE
                           GENERAL).
                                                     Reserved on :29.01.2024
                                                     Delivered on :07.02.2024
                                 This criminal revision having been heard and reserved for orders,
                           coming on for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
                                                               ORDER

With the consent of the parties heard finally.

1 . This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by t h e petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.08.2020, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagda, District-Ujjain, in Cr.A No.318/2014, affirming the judgment dated 09.09.2015, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain in Criminal Case No.162/2008, whereby the petitioners have been convicted for the offence under Sections 325/34 of IPC, sentenced to undergo 6 months R.I. with fine of

Rs.2,000/- and 323/34 of IPC (two counts), sentenced to undergo 3 months R.I., with usual default stipulations.

2.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 approximately 15 days of jail incarceration, therefore his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. It is further submitted that the petitioner deserves some leniency as he has already suffered the ordeal of the trial since 2008 i.e. for a period of 15 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 applicant is concerned, taking into

consideration that the incident had taken place in the year 2008 and further the applicant has already undergone jail sentence of approximately 15 days, this Court is of the view that the conviction of the applicant under Section 323/34 of IPC (two counts) is reduced to the period already undergone by imposing the fine amount of Rs.1,000/- and under sections 325 of IPC, the jail sentence under this offence is also reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing fine amount from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.10,000/- which will be deposited within a period of two months from today, out of the total fine amount, Rs.3,000/- shall be paid to the injured persons Vishnubai and Bapu under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. by the trial.

8. The fine amount, if already deposited as well as the compensation amount paid to the injured if any shall be adjusted.

9. The bail bond of the applicant shall be discharged after deposit of the fine amount. If the applicant fails to deposit the fine amount, they will suffer 15-15 days of simple imprisonment in default and thereafter completion of the same, he shall be released from jail, if not required in any other case.

10. The order of learned trial Court regarding disposal of the seized

property, if any, stands confirmed.

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

12. Pending application, if any, stands closed.

Certified copy, as per rules.

(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE VD