Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bajrang Lal vs State Of M.P. on 26 February, 2024
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 330/2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
ORDER DATED 26th FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 330 of 2007
BETWEEN:-
BAJRANG LAL S/O S/O PUNYA , AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: R/O
1.
GANDHI NAGAR MOHALLA, DIST. SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
JASODAW/O BAJRANG LAL , AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: R/O
2.
GANDHI NAGAR MOHALLA, DISTT. SHEIOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
DHARMU S/O S/O BAJRANGLAL , AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION: R/O
3.
GANDHI NAGAR, DISTT. SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(SHRI ASHOK KUMAR RATHORE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS)
AND
STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR, DIST. SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI GIRRAJ SONI- P.L.- APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ADVOCATE GENERAL).
This revision coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:-
ORDER
1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioners under section 397
r/w section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment dated
29/03/2007 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), District
Sheopur in Cr.A. No. 86/2006, whereby, partly allowing the judgment dated
10/11/2006 passed in criminal case No. 627/2006 by Chief Judicial Magistrate,
District Sheopur and directed the petitioners to suffer rigorous imprisonment of six
months each with fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence punishable under section
325/34 of IPC, whereby, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioners for the
offence punishable under section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for Two years each with fine of Rs. 500/- each with default
stipulation.
2. As per prosecution story, short facts of the case leading to filing of this
criminal revision are that on 06/10/2002, the son of Petitioner No. 1/ Bajrang
namely Satish and Bhoop Singh after plucking the leaves of mango tree of the
complainant namely Gappu, they were feeding the same to the goat. Thereafter, the
complainant scolded them, on which, they ran away. Thereafter, the complainant
came to his home. Thereafter, at about 9.00 'O' clock in the night the petitioners came
to the house of the complainant and told him that why he scolded their children and
thereafter the petitioner No. 1/Bajrang assaulted the complainant by means of Axe,
which hit on his right hand and blood started oozing out. The petitioner No. 2 -Jasoda
assaulted the complainant on his left hand wrist and index finger by means of Lathi.
The petitioner No. 3/Dharmu assaulted the complainant on his left and right legs
thigh and calf by means of Lathi. Thereafter, the villagers rescued the complainant.
Thereafter, on the complaint made by the complainant, the police station Sheopur,
Dist. Sheopur has registered an FIR bearing crime No. 627/2006 for the offence
punishable under sections 323, 325, 34 of IPC against the petitioners. On lodging of
F.I.R., criminal law was triggered and set in motion, investigation agency arrived at
spot, injured was taken to the hospital, recorded the statements of the eye-witnesses;
prepared the spot map; arrested the accused persons and after completion of all due
formalities, the charge sheet was submitted before the trial Court having criminal
jurisdiction.
3. The learned trial Court framed the charges against the petitioners for the
offence punishable under sections 325/34 of IPC, which were denied by them and
pleaded maladroit implication. In order to bring home the charges, prosecution has
examined as many as eight prosecution witnesses (PW-1 to PW-8) and placed Ex.
P-1 to Ex. P-15 documents on record. The defence of accused is of false
implication and the same defence has been put forth by them in their statement
recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The petitioners in their defence has
examined one witness DW/1- Phop Singh.
4. The learned trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the rival parties and
after appreciating the evidence available on record vide judgment dated 10/11/2006
passed in criminal case No. 627/2006 convicted the petitioners for the offence
punishable under Section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two years each with fine of Rs. 500/- each with default stipulation.
Being agrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal bearing Cr.A. No. 86/2006 before the
learned Second Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), District Sheopur. The learned
Second Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), District Sheopur after hearing learned
counsel for the rival parties vide impugned judgment dated 29/03/2007 partly allowed
the judgment dated 10/11/2006 passed in criminal case No. 627/2006 by Chief
Judicial Magistrate, District Sheopur and directed the petitioners to suffer rigorous
imprisonment of six months each with fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence
punishable under section 325/34 of IPC, against which, the present revision is filed.
5. Learned counsel for the accused / petitioners argued that the petitioners have
falsely been implicated in the case. It is further argued that there are omissions and
contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It is further submitted
that prosecution has not examined any independent witness, but only interested
witnesses have been examined. It is further argued that the petitioners are facing the
criminal proceedings from the date of incident i.e. 06/10/2002 to till date and are
suffering physically and mentally for the same and have already served total
incarceration of approximately Two Months out of total awarded maximum sentence
of Six months. It is further argued that the injury caused to the complainant can be
self inflicted or the same can be caused due to falling down on the ground, but the
learned trial Court has ignored this important aspect of the matter and has convicted
the petitioners vide impugned jugment. On these grounds, it is prayed that the
revision filed by the petitioners deserves to be allowed and the judgment of
conviction deserves to be set aside.
6. In alternative leaned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have
already suffered incarceration of approximately Two Months. It is submitted that
looking to the nature of offence and the fact that petitioners have already served
substantive part of jail sentence, the same may be reduced to the period already
undergone and the amount of fine may reasonably be enhanced.
7. Learned counsel for respondent / State submits that after due appreciation of
evidence, learned Court below has found the offence proved against the petitioners,
which requires no interference. It is submitted that the revision filed by the
petitioners be dismissed.
8. From perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that no illegality has been
committed by the learned Courts below in convicting the petitioners, hence the
judgment of conviction passed by the learned Courts below requires no interference
and the same is hereby maintained.
9. So far as the period of sentence is concerned, looking to the limited prayer
made by the counsel for the petitioners and the nature of offence and the fact that
petitioners are facing the criminal proceedings since 2002 and have already served
substantive period of jail sentence, the purpose would be served in case the jail
sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone.
However, for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC the amount of fine is
hereby enhanced to Rs. 2,000/- each.
10. In the result, this criminal revision is partly allowed. The findings of conviction
are hereby maintained with the modification to the extent that the jail sentence
awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone subject to
depositing fine amount imposed by the Courts below as well as additional fine
amount of Rs. 2,000/- each, total additional fine amount of Rs. 6,000/-, out of which,
an amount of Rs. 4,000/- shall be payable to the complainant Gappu by way of
compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. within a period of two months, failing
which the petitioners shall suffer jail sentence awarded by the learned Court below.
Petitioners are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged.
11. With the aforesaid modification, the instant criminal revision stands disposed
of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE
Durgekar*
