Madhya Pradesh High Court
Guddoo @ Bhavendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 601 of 2006
BETWEEN:-
GUDDOO @ BHAVENDRA SINGH S/O SITARAM SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O GORAIYAGHAT, PS.
BARELA, DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ABHISHEK RISHI - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.PS.BARELA
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI S.K. MALVI - PANEL LAWYER )
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on :- 26.02.2024
Pronounced on :- 29 .02.2024
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Criminal Revision having been heard and reserved for judgement,
coming on for pronouncement this day, the Court passed the following:
JUDGMENT
This revision has been filed by the applicant under Section 397/401 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 07.04.2006, passed by
the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in Criminal Appeal No.611/2005
whereby it partly allowed the appeal filed by the present applicant against the
judgment dated 09.12.2005, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Jabalpur in Criminal Case No.64/1997 whereby applicant had been
convicted under Sections 294 and 326 of IPC.
2. Learned Appellate Court has acquitted the applicant for offence under
Sections 294 and 326 of IPC but convicted the applicant only under Section
324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.3,000/-
with default stipulations.
3. As per the prosecution story, the incident is stated to have occurred
on 01.11.1997 at about 2:45 pm in the afternoon. When the complainant was
sitting in front of a shop and the applicant is said to have approached armed
with 'farsa' and started using filthy language against the complainant. The
dispute was regarding the dog of complainant which was creating nuisance to
the present applicant. The applicant is stated to have hit the complainant with
'farsa' leading to incised wound in his right shoulder and blood starting oozing
out.
4. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and charges were framed
against the present applicant. He denied charges and claimed to be tried.
5. This Court has gone through the evidence adduced in the case before
the trial Court. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have turned hostile. The incident is
supported by deposition of PW-4/Ram Kumar Namdeo, he supported the
prosecution version in his examination-in-chief.
6. Upon perusal of his cross-examination, it is seen by this Court that
there is nothing which demolished the prosecution version that the applicant has
caused injury on the complainant PW-4. PW-6/Dr. Alok Agrawal is one of the
doctors who has examined the complainant. PW-8/Dr. A. Chaddha is the other
medical witness.
7. As per the deposition of these doctors, it is clear that the injured was
first taken to Victoria Hospital and he was examined by PW-8 and thereafter he
was taken to NSCB Medical College, Jabalpur and he was examined by PW-6.
PW/8 has deposed that the injury on right shoulder was incised injury having
size 2½ x 1½ inches. PW-6, who examined the complainant in Medical College,
Jabalpur has deposed that the injury was 4 cm x 1 cm on right shoulder but no
bone injury was seen. In para 4 of deposition of PW-6 has admitted that there
was no bleeding from the wound at the time of examination by him. Both
doctors have not given any finding of bony injury.
8 . The Appellate Court has held that it is not proved that under what
circumstances the complainant was taken to Medical Collage because there was
no referral by Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur. There is no X-ray examination of the
injured and thus, the prosecution failed to prove that any grievous injury was
caused on the complainant. Even the use of filthy language was found to be not
proved by the Appellate Court. Thus, considering the aforesaid facts of the
case, the Appellate Court converted the conviction to one under Section 324 of
IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.3,000/-with
default stipulations.
9. In view of the detailed consideration of the evidence adduced in the
case, I do not find any ground which may demolish the prosecution case and
the findings of the appellate court appear to be impeccable. No second view is
possible from the angles suggested by the learned counsel for the applicant.
10. This Court is unable to disturb the findings of conviction of the
present applicant under Section 324 of IPC in its revisional jurisdiction. Even
otherwise, this Court has gone through the entire evidence, no infirmity in the
findings is found.
11. Consequently, the conviction of the applicant under Section 324 of
IPC is maintained.
12. However, there are certain mitigating circumstances of this case, the
incident has occurred in the year 1997 and the applicant has been appearing
before the Trial Court, the Appellate Court or before this Court as condition of
suspension of sentence or bail since the last 27 years.
13. From the record of the case, it is apparent that the applicant has
remained in actual jail custody from 07.04.2006 till 18.04.2006 i.e for a period
of 12 days. Nothing has come on record regarding misuse of condition of
bail/suspension of sentence during the long period since the prosecution, trial
and appeal were pending. Thus, this Court deems it fit to reduce the sentence of
applicant to the period already undergone by him (12 days) but to enhance the
fine amount from Rs.3000/- to Rs.7,500/-.
1 4 . Consequently, this revision is partly allowed. The impugned
conviction is maintained. However, the applicant is sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for the period he has already undergone (12 days), subject to
depositing the further fine amount of Rs.4,500/- within a period of two months
from today.
15. However, it is clarified that if the additional amount Rs.4,500/- as
quantified by this Court is not deposited within a period of two months from
today, then the original sentence would come into operation and applicant shall
b e taken into custody or he would surrender himself to serve the entire jail
sentence of one year as awarded by the learned trial Court with default
stipulations.
16. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.
17. The bail bonds of the applicant, if any, are discharged.
18. Registry is directed to immediately send back the trial Court record
alongwith copy of this judgment to the trial Court concerned for information
and necessary compliance.
19. With the aforesaid modification, this Criminal Revision is partly
allowed and disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
Prar
