Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jasrath vs State Of M.P. on 12 August, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17509
1 CRR-135-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 12 th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 135 of 2012
JASRATH
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Ravindra Sharma, Advocate appeared through Legal aid.
Shri Puran Kumar Kulshreshtha appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
ORDER
Nobody has appeared for petitioner. This criminal revision is pending since
last 13 years and no counsel is appearing on behalf of petitioner and therefore, in
the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to appoint any counsel from legal aid
Committee. Therefore, Shri Ravindra Sharma, Panel Lawyer, who is present in the
Court is appointed through legal aid Committee on behalf of petitioner. He has
agreed to argue the matter on behalf of appellant.
Secretary, Legal Aid Committee High Court, Gwalior is directed to formally
appoint and pay fees of Panel lawyer accordingly according to rules.
Matter is heard finally
2. The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision under Section 397/401
of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") being aggrieved by the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 9.2.2012 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, Karera, District Shivpuri in Criminal Appeal
No.91/2011 affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15.3.2011
passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karera, District Shivpuri in Criminal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17509
2 CRR-135-2012
Case No.1017/2009 whereby the petitioner/accused has been convicted for the
offence under Section 327 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 year Rigorous
Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-, with usual default stipulation.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 23.11.2009 at about 7 PM while
complainant Kilol Singh was sitting in front of his house, at that time, petitioner
came there and told him that if you want to live in the house of village, you should
pay me Rs.10,000/- for the expenses. When complainant denied to pay said
amount to him then petitioner hit him by kick, due to which complainant sustained
injuries on his private part. Petitioner/accused also abused complainant in a filthy
language and threatened him for life. When complainant objected, then Bhagwan
Singh and Khuman Singh came there for intervention. Thereafter, complainant
lodged FIR at Police Station Amola, District Shivpuri. After completion of
investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before JMFC, Karera, District Shivpuri.
4. Trial Court framed charges under Section 294, 327 and 506 Part-II of
IPC.
5. Petitioner/accused abjured his guilt and pleaded complete innocence.
6. Prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses while defence has
examined one witness.
7. Trial Court after completion of trial and scrutinizing evidence available
on record acquitted the petitioner for the offence under Section 294 and 506 Part-II
of IPC and convicted for the offence under Section 327 of IPC and sentenced as
aforementioned. Petitioner preferred an appeal before Additional Sessions Judge,
Karera, District Shivpuri but same has been affirmed by maintaining the judgment
of conviction and sentence. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioner has
preferred this criminal revision before this Court.
8. Petitioner has preferred the present revision on several grounds, but
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17509
3 CRR-135-2012
during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is facing trial since last 16 years. He has already deposited fine amount
before the trial Court. He submits that he does not want to press this criminal
revision on merits and he is not assailing the conviction part of the judgment but
he confined his argument only to the extent of quantum of sentence part. His only
prayer is that imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to the period already
undergone as the petitioner has already suffered jail incarceration from 24.11.2009
to 30.11.2009 and 9.12.2012 to 14.3.2012 of total 1 month and 11 days during the
pendency of the revision. Petitioner is not having any criminal background.
Therefore, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record and
evidence available on record.
10. In view of the above submissions, although the conviction has not been
challenged, but perusal of the evidence available on record also justifies the
judgments of conviction passed by both the Courts below.
11. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the submissions made
by the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be just and proper. The
petitioner has already suffered jail incarceration from 24.11.2009 to 30.11.2009
and 9.12.2012 to 14.3.2012 of total 1 month and 11 days. He has now turned
about 44 years of age. He is not having any criminal background. He is facing trial
since last 16 years. Therefore, this Court finds it appropriate to partly allow this
revision petition by affirming the conviction of the petitioner, however, reducing
his jail sentence to the period already undergone by him.
12. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed by maintaining the
conviction of the petitioner, but reducing the jail sentence to the period already
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17509
4 CRR-135-2012
undergone by him with fine as imposed by the trial court. The fine amount has
already been deposited by the petitioner. Since petitioner is already on bail, his
bail bond and surety bond stand discharged. Disposal of the property shall be
conducted as per the order of the trial Court.
13. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court alongwith the
records for information and necessary compliance.
14. Certified copy as per rules.
A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Legal Aid Committee,
Gwalior.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
R
