Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 March, 2024
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 6 th OF MARCH, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 212 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
MUKESH S/O SIDDHNATH BANJARA, AGED ABOUT 35
YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O GRAM GHATIYA,
TEHSIL GHATIYA, (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SITA RAM MADROSIYA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH P.S. KOTWALI UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SANTOSH SINGH THAKUR - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
T h is revision coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
This is revision u/S.397/401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the
judgment passed by learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Cr.A.
No.207/2023 on 6.1.2024 whereby the petitioner has been convicted under
Sections 332/149, 147 of IPC and sentenced to undergo for RI for 2 years, 6
months with fine of Rs.1000/-, Rs.500/- respectively in default of payment of
fine, he shall further undergo R.I for one month, 15 days.
2. At the outset, counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not
challenging the conviction and is confining his submissions on the sentence.
3. Counsel for the State supports the order of conviction and sentence.
4. Upon perusal of the record, it is found that the prosecution has
successfully proved its case by the testimony of complainant Lal Singh who has
alleged that when he went at the spot with Constable Gulabchandra, the accused
persons were quarreling and they obstructed the complainant and also caused
injury with lathi. Thus, they obstructed in discharging of official work and also
caused maarpeet. The testimony of complainant Lalsingh is well corroborated
with other witnesses i.e. PW - 2/Bhaiyalal, PW - 10/Dashrath Singh Sikarwar,
PW - 8/ASI, Suresh Shakya. Though PW - 9/Sunil Singh, PW - 6/Rajesh Rai
did not supported the prosecution case, the statement of the complainant is well
corroborated with medical evidence and the testimony of PW - 7/Dr. Ajay
Sharma. Thus, this Court does not find any error in the order of conviction.
5. Heard on sentence.
6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already
remained in jail for about 2 months 10 days, in total, during the pendency of
trial, Appeal and Revision. The incident had taken place in the year 2007. They
were on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty. No purpose would be
served in sending the petitioner in jail after such long period.
7. After hearing learned counsel for parties and considering the
submissions of sentence, this court finds that the incident had taken place in the
year 2007 and the petitioner was on bail during trial and did not misuse the
liberty, therefore, his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.
The fine amount for offence under Section 332/149 of IPC is enhanced from
Rs.1000/- to Rs.2000/- and fine amount for offence under Section 147 of IPC
is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.1000/-. The enhanced fine amount shall be
deposited by the petitioner within a period of 3 months. If the fine amount is
deposited by the petitioner within the said period, the petitioner shall be released
from jail. If the fine amount in respect of Bhaiyalal has been deposited by the
petitioner in pursuant to the order of Magistrate, the same shall be adjusted by
the Trial Court as the petitioner has been acquitted, so far causing injuries to
Bhaiyalal. Out of the enhanced fine amount Rs.1500/- shall be paid by the Trial
Court to the injured Lalsingh. If the enhanced fine amount is not deposited
within the said period the petitioner shall undergo the remaining jail sentence as
per the order of the Appellate Court.
8. With the aforesaid, the Revision is partly allowed and disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
PK
