Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lalu vs State Of M.P. on 21 August, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18532
1 CRR-138-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 21st OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 138 of 2013
LALU
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Ram Krishna Soni, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Harish Sharma, Public Prosecutor for State.
ORDER
The petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision under Section 397
read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short
'Cr.P.C.'), being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 15.2.2013 passed by Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar in
Criminal Appeal No.172/2012, whereby the judgment dated 22.8.2012
passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashok Nagar in Criminal Case
No.183/2011 has been affirmed, whereby petitioner has been convicted for
the offence under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to suffer 3 months RI
with fine of Rs.1000/- with usual default stipulation.
2. Prosecution story in brief is that on 22.1.2011 at about 5 PM while
complainant was going in way of temple, at that time, present appellant
alongwith other co-accused persons came there armed with axe and they
abused him in filthy language. Lalu inflicted axe on his head and other two
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18532
2 CRR-138-2013
accused persons also beaten him by means of wooden stick. Narayan Singh
and Ramdayal came there for intervention. Complainant Gajram lodged an
FIR at Police Station Kachnar, District Ashoknagar. Accordingly, offence
has been registered.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed
before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashok Nagar, who has framed the
charge under Section 294, 324, 323/34, 324/34(two counts), 506 Part-II, 323
of IPC. Petitioner/accused alongwith other co-accused persons abjured their
guilt and pleaded complete innocence.
4. Prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses while
defence did not examine any witness.
5. The trial Court after completion of trial and scrutinizing entire
evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the
offence mentioned herein-above. Other co-accused persons also convicted
for the offence under Section 323/34 of IPC and sentenced accordingly.
6. Being aggrieved by the said conviction, the petitioner alongwith
other co-accused persons have preferred a Criminal Appeal before the
Sessions Court, Ashok Nagar. Vide judgment dated 15.2.2013 passed by
Sessions Court, Ashok Nagar, conviction of all the other co-accused persons
have been upheld and their jail sentence have been set aside and they have
been pusnished only with fine of Rs.1000/- While conviction of petitioner
has been upheld for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced 3
months RI with fine of Rs.1000/ with usual default stipulation. Being
aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18532
3 CRR-138-2013
below, petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision before this Court.
7. The petitioner has preferred present Revision on several grounds,
but during the course of the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner does not want to press this Criminal Revision on merit
and is not assailing the conviction and sentence part of the judgment. He has
confined his argument only to the extent of quantum of the sentence and his
sole prayer is that the imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to the period
already undergone by him, as the petitioner is facing trial since 2011. He has
already suffered jail incarceration from 15.2.2013 to 22.2.2013. Petitioner
has no criminal past, therefore, his jail sentence be reduced to the period
already undergone.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the
revision and prays for its rejection by submitting that both the Courts below
have rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner and the sentence in
question is sufficient.
9. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
10. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner, although the conviction has not been challenged, but a bare
perusal of the evidence available on record, also justifies the judgment of
conviction passed by both the Courts below.
11. So far as the quantum of jail sentence is concerned, the
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be just and
proper. Petitioner has suffered jail incarceration from 15.2.2013 to
22.2.2013. At the time of incident petitioner was aged about 22 years and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18532
4 CRR-138-2013
now he has turned more than 43 years of age. He is not having any criminal
past. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to reduce
the jail sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
12. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed by maintaining
the conviction, but reducing the jail sentence to the period already undergone
by petitioner, however, by enhancing fine amount under Section 323 of IPC
from Rs.1000 to Rs.2000/-. The enhanced amount be deposited before trial
Court by applicant within a period of one month from today and in case of
default of depositing the enhanced fine amount, the trial Court shall proceed
accordingly. Since petitioner is already on bail, his bail bonds and surety
bonds stand discharged. Disposal of property shall be conducted as per the
order of trial Court.
13. The order regarding disposal of the property as pronounced by the
trial Court is also affirmed.
14. Let a copy of this order alongwith record of both the Courts below
be sent back to the concerned Courts for information and necessary
compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
R
