Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 May, 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
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1164 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
SURESH S/O KANAKSINGH JAMRE, AGED ABOUT 45
YEAR S , JULVANIYA ROAD, RAJPUR, P.S. RAJPUR,
DISTT. BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ASHISH GUPTA, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THRU. P.S. RAJPUR, DISTT. BARWANI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SURENDRA GUPTA, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Reserved on : 15.05.2024
Pronounced on : 21.05.2024
T h is revision coming having been heard and reserved for orders,
coming on for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following :
ORDER
With consent of the parties heard finally.
1. This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C.
has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment dated 07.03.2018,
passed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, District-Badwani, in Criminal
Appeal No.152/2015 whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the
appellant and affirmed the judgment dated 16.12.2015 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Rajpur District Badwani in Criminal Case No.1103/2009,
whereby the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 323 of IPC, 1860
and sentenced to undergo 6 months R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- and default stipulation.
2. The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision on several grounds but
during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press this
revision on merits and not assailed the finding of conviction part of the judgment. He
confines his argument on the point of sentence only and prays that since the petitioner
has undergone approximately 12 days of jail incarceration, therefore his sentence be
reduced to the period already undergone. It is further submitted that the petitioner
deserves some leniency as he has already suffered the ordeal of the trial since 2008 i.e.
for a period of more than 15 years. It is further submitted that this petition be partly
allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioner be reduced to the period already
undergone by enhancing the fine amount.
3. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supports the impugned
judgment and prays 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 petitioner 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 by 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 petitioner is concerned, after the lapse of more
than 15 years, the submissions have been made by the petitioner with regard to reducing
the sentence to the already undergone period by imposing compensation upon the
petitioner in lieu of fine. The petitioner has suffered the ordeal of criminal case since
2008, this Court finds it expedient to partly allow this revision petition by affirming the
conviction of the petitioner and by imposing the compensation amount in lieu of fine.
7. So far as the sentence is concerned, the petitioner has already suffered 12
days in custody out of six months with fine, there is no criminal records pointed out by
the prosecution against the petitioner, he is facing trial since 2008 which is more than
15 years, hence, at this stage, sending him in jail to suffer remaining imprisonment
could not serve the interest of justice. However, instead of sending him in jail,
substantive compensation would be appropriate.
8. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed and the sentence
awarded to the petitioner is hereby reduced to the sentence already undergone by
imposing the compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- under Section 323 of IPC to be paid
by the petitioner within a period of two months from today. Compensation amount so
deposited by the petitioner be paid to Injured-Harish under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C.
by the trial Court. The fine amount, if already deposited as well as the compensation
amount paid to the injured if any shall be adjusted. The bail bond of the petitioner shall
be discharged after depositing of the compensation amount. If the petitioner fails to
deposit the compensation amount, he will suffer 2 months of simple imprisonment in
default.
9 . A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary
compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
VD
