Madhya Pradesh High Court
Parvej And Anr. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 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. 979 of 2012
BETWEEN:-
1. PARVEJ AND ANR. S/O ABDUL HAFIZ, AGED ABOUT 32
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: LABOUR 256,SECTOR A
CHANDANNAGAR,DISTT.INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. JUBER S/O ABDUL HAFIZ , AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOUR AAMWALA RD. TEESRI GALI P.S.
CHANDANNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI YOGESH PUROHIT, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH GOVT. THRU. P.S. CHANDAN
NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SURENDRA GUPTA, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 995 of 2012
BETWEEN:-
YUSUF S/O AMIN, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, AAMWALA ROAD,3RD
LANE, CHANDAN NAGAR INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA GANGARE, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH GOVT. THRU. P.S. CHANDAN
NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SURENDRA GUPTA, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Reserved on : 31.01.2024
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY
Signing time: 27-02-2024
09:29:51
2
Pronounced on : 17.02.2024
These criminal revisions 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.
At the outset, this revision petition is already dismissed as abated qua petitioner
No. 1 Parvej in Criminal Revision No.979/2012, hence, this order shall govern qua
petition No. 2 Juber only.
2. This order shall govern the disposal of these criminal revisions as they are arisen
out of same order dated 14.05.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 369/2012 by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, District-Indore Hence, they are heard analogously and
are being decided by this common order.
2. Thes e criminal revisions under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 have been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the judgment dated
30.08.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, District-Indore, in Cr.A
No.369/2012, affirming the judgment dated 14.05.2012, passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, District-Indore in Criminal Case No.3617/2005, whereby the
petitioners namely Juver and Yusuf have been convicted for the offence under Section
324/34 of IPC( two counts), sentenced to undergo 2-2 years R.I. with fine of Rs.500/-
and 500/- with default stipulations.
2. The petitioners have preferred these criminal revisions on several grounds but
during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners did not press the
revisions on merits and not assail the finding part of judgments. He confines his argument
on the point of sentence only and prays that since the petitioners have already undergone
approximately two months in jail incarceration, their sentence be reduced to the period
already undergone. The petitioners deserve some leniency as they have already suffered
the ordeal of the trial since 1999 for a period of 24 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 supported the impugned
judgment and prayed 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. Further, it is found that the Court below considered the evidence available on
record and correctly found that the case of the prosecution is well supported by the
witnesses and documentary testimony. The procedure was well followed by the
prosecution and the witnesses of prosecution have profoundly supported the prosecution
case. The Court below has well considered the material available on record, hence, no
infirmity is found in the impugned order of conviction passed by the Court below,
accordingly, the same is upheld.
6. So far as the sentence of the petitioners is concerned, looking to the gravity of
offence and nature of the allegation and the fact that the petitioners have already
completed custody period of approximately two months, they have already suffered the
ordeal of the trial since 1999 for a period of 24 years, this Court finds it expedient to
partly allow this revision petition by reducing the sentence of the petitioners by enhancing
the fine amount.
7. Accordingly, these revision petitions are partly allowed and the sentence
awarded to the petitioners is hereby reduced to the sentence already undergone by
increasing the fine amount from Rs.500/- to Rs. 10,000/- under Section 324/34 of IPC to
be paid by each of the petitioner, within a period of one month from today. Out of the
fine amount so deposited by the petitioners, Rs.5,000/-,5000/- be paid to injured persons
namely Asharaf and Mohd. Hameed under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. by the trial Court.
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 petitioners shall be discharged after deposit of the fine
amount. If the petitioners fail to deposit the fine amount, they will suffer 02-02 months of
simple imprisonment in default.
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
