Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kishore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2024
Author: Prakash Chandra Gupta
Bench: Prakash Chandra Gupta
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
ON THE 26 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 96 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
KISHORE S/O RAMCHANDRA KHATI, AGED ABOUT 41
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE
NAYAPURA, P.S.SAGOR, TEH.AND DISTT. DHAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SOURABH SONKAR, ADVOCATE.)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THRU .P.S. SAGOR
DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAHUL SOLANKI, GOVT. ADVOCATE.)
This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This criminal revision u/s 397 r/w 401 of the Code Of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the petitioner/accused being aggrieved
by the judgment dated 03/01/2018 passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions
Judge, District- Dhar, in Criminal Appeal No.145/2017, whereby, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge has partly dismissed the appeal, arising out of the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17/08/2017 passed JMFC,
Dhar in Criminal case no.4810/ 2014, whereby the learned magistrate had
convicted the petitioner/ accused u/s 325 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I.
of 1 year and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, with default stipulation.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 22/11/2014 at 02:10 AM, the
petitioner/accused Kishore voluntarily given blow to the complainant Pawan by
means of iron rod and had voluntarily caused hurt on his head and both hands,
while the complainant Pawan was returning from his farmland by his bike.
Complainant Pawan sustained fractures in right ulna and left radius bone. Matter
was reported on the same day against the applicant.
3. The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision on several grounds
but during the course of argument, learned counsel for petitioner did not press
this revision on merit and does not assail the finding part of the judgment. He
confines his argument on the point of sentence only and prays that the petitioner
has already undergone 9 days (03/01/2018 - 12/01/2018) in incarceration. It is
further submitted that the petitioner deserves some leniency as he has already
suffered the ordeal of trial since 2014. Therefore, it is prayed that this petition
be partly allowed and the sentence awarded upon the petitioner be reduced to
the period he has already undergone by enhancing the fine amount.
4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supports the
impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of this petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be just and
proper. Hence, finding force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, and the fact that the petitioner suffered the ordeal of criminal
case since 2014. After lapse of almost more than 9 years, no purpose would be
served in sending the petitioner to jail after such a long period.
6. Therefore, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction is
maintained. The jail sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already
undergone by him and the fine amount of petitioner/ accused Kishore is
enhanced to Rs.10,000/- which shall be paid to the complainant/ injured Pawan.
In case if the petitioner fail to deposit the enhanced fine amount, the default
stipulation shall be of 3 months of Simple Imprisonment. If any fine amount
already paid, the same shall be adjusted with the aforesaid fine amount. The bail
bonds of the petitioner shall be discharged after deposit of the fine amount
before the learned trial court.
7. Registry is directed to supply copy of this order to the petitioner
through their counsel free of cost. A copy of this order alongwith the records
be sent to the concerned trial court for necessary compliance.
8. Accordingly, this petition is disposed off.
(PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
JUDGE
ajit
