Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Mehtar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2024
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 27 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1251 of 2011
BETWEEN:-
1. SANJAY MEHTAR S/O SHRI KISHORI LAL
MEHTAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, GAYATRI
NAGAR KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAJA @ AMIT S/O CHANDAN DOMER, AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, JHARA TEKORIA, P.S., TEHSIL
AND DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI PRAHLAD CHOUDHARY - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SOURABH SHUKLA - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is revision coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 02.08.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Katni in Criminal Case No.1137 of 2008 as well as the judgment dated
19.07.2011 passed by the Sessions Court, Katni in Criminal Appeal No.125 of
2010 affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the
trial court whereby the petitioners have been convicted under Section 323/34
(two counts) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for six months and
fine of Rs.250/- in each count with default stipulations.
2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 07.04.1999 at about 10:00 am
when the complainants were going to Durga Mandir, the accused persons who
were standing nearby started abusing them and assaulted them by means of
hockey and iron rod. An FIR was registered under Sections 294, 323, 324 and
506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of the
investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
3. The petitioners abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. To bring
home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses including
injured complainant Anuj (PW/1), Manoj (PW/3) and Dr. Yashwant Verma
(PW/2). Upon consideration the entire evidence, learned trial Judge, for the
reasons assigned in the judgment under challenge, found the petitioners held
guilty under Sections 323/34 (two counts) of the IPC. Aggrieved by the same,
an appeal was filed before the Sessions Court which was dismissed. Hence, the
present Criminal Revision.
4. The petitioners have preferred this revision on several grounds and during
the course of arguments, pressed on merits inasmuch as there are material
contradictions and omissions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and
alternatively, prayed for releasing the petitioners on the basis of period already
undergone by them by affirming the judgment of conviction. Fine amount has
already been deposited by them. They were on bail during trial and never
misused the liberty granted to them. The petitioners remained in custody from
19.07.2011 to 08.08.2011 (21 days). Under these circumstances, they have
prayed to dispose off this revision and reduce the sentence to that already
undergone by the them by enhancing the fine amount.
5. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State has
opposed the prayer but has not controverted the facts submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioners.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the
impugned judgment passed by learned trial court as well as by the appellate
court and statements of prosecution witnesses; particularly Anuj (PW/1), Manoj
(PW/3) and Dr. Yashwant Verma (PW/2), this court is of the considered
opinion that no error has been committed by learned courts below in recording
the guilt of the petitioners as mentioned hereinabove and in convicting and
sentencing them as mentioned hereinabove on the basis of aforesaid witnesses.
Testimony of witnesses Anuj (PW/1), Manoj (PW/3) and Dr. Yashwant Verma
(PW/2), is alone of sterling quality and can be the basis of conviction of the
petitioners and cannot be brushed aside on these simple reasons that some
contradictions, omissions are present in their statements. Other discrepancies
which have been highlighted in the statement of prosecution witnesses do not
really earn status of contraction to make the evidence of Anuj (PW/1), Manoj
(PW/3) and Dr. Yashwant Verma (PW/2), impeachable, incredible and not
beyond reproach.
7. Now the question arises that as to how a balance should be struck and
maintained in regard to the sentence.
8. As far the quantum of sentence is concerned, it is undisputed that incident
had taken place 25 years ago. The petitioners have already suffered jail
sentenced for 21 days out of awarded jail sentence. Therefore, taking into
consideration the aforesaid fact, it does not appear to be just and proper to
uphold the sentence of the petitioners awarded by the learned trial court. This
court is of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be sub-served if
the jail sentence of the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by
them with some compensation to injured persons.
9. In the result, the revision is allowed in part. The impugned conviction of the
petitioners is maintained but the term of jail sentence is reduced to the period
already undergone by them. In view of Section 357 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners
are directed t o pay compensation of Rs.2500/- (Two Thousand and Five
Hundred Only) each in all Rs.5000/- (Five Thousand Only) which equally
distributed between the injured persons; namely Anuj (PW/1), Manoj (PW/3)
within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order
while giving an undertaking before the trial Court that if they fail to pay
Rs.5000/- (Five Thousand Only) then trial Court would proceed against them to
serve remaining part of jail sentence. The petitioners are on bail, their bail bonds
stand discharged.
10. With the aforesaid modification, the present revision is partly allowed and
disposed off.
11. A copy of the judgment along with the records of the courts below be
sent immediately to the court concerned for information and necessary action.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
sj
