Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 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 26 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3592 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
1. SURESH S/O SAMRATHSINGH, AGED ABOUT 46
YEAR S , THAKUR MOHALLA BHOURASA TEH.
SONKATCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ARJUN SINGH S/O UTTAMSINGH TAHKUR, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, THAKUR MOHALLA,
BHOURASA, TEHSIL SONKATCH , (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. INDERSINGH S/O PHOOLSINGH THAKUR, AGED
ABOUT 38 YEARS, THAKUR MOHALLA,
BHOURASA, TEHSIL SONKATCH , (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. RANDHIR SINGH S/O PARVAT SINGH THAKUR
THAKUR MOHALLAH, BHOURASA, TEHSIL
SONKATCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI VISHAL SHARMA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER [P-
1].
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THR.PS. BHURASA DISTT. DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI RAJESH JOSHI APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ADVOCATE
GENERAL.
Th i s criminal revision coming for hearing this day, t h e 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 petitioners being aggrieved by the
judgment dated 04.10.2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Sonkachh, District-Dewas in Cr.A No.12/2017, whereby the learned session
judge has affirming the judgment dated 30.12.2016, passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class Criminal Case No.572/2010 and modified the sentence of
the petitioners and convicted them under Sections 325/34 and 323/34 of IPC
and sentenced to undergo for six months R.I. and three months R.I. with fine of
Rs.500 and Rs.300/- respectively for the offence under Section 325/345 and
323/34 of IPC, with usual default stipulations.
2. The petitioners have preferred this criminal revision on several grounds
but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners did not
press this revision on merits and not assail the finding part of judgment. He
confines his argument on the point of sentence only and prays that since the
petitioners have already undergone approximately 20 days 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
2010 for a period of 14 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. 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 petitioners is concerned, so far as the
sentence of the applicants is concerned, taking into consideration that the
incident had taken place in the year 2010 and further the applicants have
already undergone jail sentence of approximately 20 days, this Court is of
the view that the conviction and sentence of the petitioners under Section
323/34 of IPC and under sections 325/34 of IPC, the jail sentence under
this offence is reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing fine
amount from Rs.300/- to Rs.1,000/- (by each of the petitioners) under
Section 323/34 and from Rs.500/- to Rs.10000/- (bey each of the
petitioners) under Section 325/34 of IPC which will be deposited within a
period of two months from today, out of the total fine amount, Rs.5,000/-
shall be paid to the injured persons namely Dilip, Ratan, Shekhar
Goswami and Satish 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 petitioners shall be discharged after deposit
of the fine amount. If the petitioners fail 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
amit
