Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhuru vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2024
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 23 rd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 741 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
BHURU S/O IQBAL MANSURI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOURER SHRINAGAR COLONY,
DHAR, DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VIJAY SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION KOTWALI
DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MS.NISHA JAISWAL - PP)
This revision coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is revision u/S.397/401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the
judgment passed by learned I Sessions Judge, Dhar in Cr.A. No.95/2022 on
13.2.2024 whereby the learned Judge has affirmed the judgment passed by
learned CJM, Dhar in RCT No.1501610/2016 on 22.9.2022 wherein the learned
judgment has convicted the applicant u/S.324 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation.
2. Counsel for applicant submits that the applicant is not challenging the
order of conviction on merit, but is confining his submissions on the question
of sentence. It is submitted that the incident had taken place in the year 2016.
The applicant was on bail during trial and appeal. He has already remained in
jail for about 10 days and for the offence u/S.324 of IPC, there is no minimum
jail sentence prescribed. Instead of sending the applicant in jail after such a
long period, the jail sentence may be reduced to period already undergone and
fine amount may be enhanced and compensation be paid to the victim.
3. Counsel for State supports the order of conviction and sentence.
4. So far the conviction of the applicant is concerned, the same has been
proved by the prosecution by the testimony of complainant/victim PW.5
Noushad which is further corroborated by the testimony of Harun PW.6 and
Mohd Azhar PW.7. Apart from that, PW.7 Dr. Neeraj Kumar also proved his
medical report Ex.P/16 stating that the victim has received the injury on left side
of the skull. Thus, in view of the aforesaid consideration this court does not
find any error in the order of conviction.
5. Heard on the question of sentence. Considered the submissions of
learned counsel for applicant on question of sentence that the incident had taken
place in the year 2016 and the applicant was on bail during trial and appeal and
did not misuse the liberty. It is further urged that he has maintained good
relation with the victim. In view of the aforesaid, the jail sentence of the
applicant is reduced to the period already undergone and fine amount of
Rs.2000/- is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- and the enhanced fine amount shall be
deposited within a period of one month from today. Out of the total fine
amount of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.8000/- shall be paid to victim PW.5 Noushad by the
trial court. If the fine amount is deposited within the aforesaid period, the
applicant shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. In case if
the enhanced fine amount is not deposited within the aforesaid period applicant
shall undergo the remaining jail sentence as per the order of the appellate court.
6. With the aforesaid, appeal is partly allowed and disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
VM
