Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prabhudayal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 August, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19454
1 CRR-1026-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 26 th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1026 of 2013
PRABHUDAYAL
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Kumar Jha, Advocate appeared through Legal Aid.
Shri Anurag Sharma, Public Prosecutor for State.
ORDER
Today nobody has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. This criminal
revision is pending since 2013, therefore, in the interest of justice, Shri Vijay
Kumar Jha, Advocate, who is present in the Court and his name is in the panel of
Legal Aid Committee, Gwalior, is appointed as counsel for the petitioner.
2. 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
20.12.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pichore, District Shivpuri in
Criminal Appeal No.65/2013, whereby the judgment dated 11.2.2013 passed by
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pichore, District Shivpuri in Criminal Case
No.602/2011 has been affirmed, whereby petitioner has been convicted for the
offence under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced to suffer 1 year SI with fine of
Rs.200/- with usual default stipulation.
3. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 8.10.2011
complainant Lakhan alongwith his son Gyan Singh and Devi Singh lodged a FIR
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19454
2 CRR-1026-2013
at P.S. Pichore by stating that he has purchased field at Sangada about two years
ago and co-accused Pooran wants to purchase it and on the date of incident at
about 2:30 PM, when he was guarding his crop, at that time, present appellant
alongwith Pooran came there armed with stick and attacked upon him. Due to
which, he sustained certain injuries. After hearing hue and cry of him, Kripal
came there for intervention, then accused persons fled away from spot after
threatening him. Accordingly, offence has been registered.
4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pichore, District Shivpuri, who has framed the
charge under Section 294, 323/34, 324/34, 325/34, 506 Part II of
IPC. Petitioner/accused and co-accused abjured their guilt and pleaded complete
innocence.
5. Prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses while defence
examined two witnesses.
6. The trial Court after considering the submissions advanced by both the
parties and scrutinizing entire evidence available on record, convicted and
sentenced petitioner for the offence mentioned herein-above and co-accused
Pooran has been convicted for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced
till rising of Court with fine of Rs.500/- with usual default stipulations.
7. Being aggrieved by the said conviction, the petitioner/accused has
preferred a Criminal Appeal before the First Appellate Court, but the same was
dismissed by affirming the judgment and sentenced by the trial Court. Being
aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below,
petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision before this Court.
8. The petitioner has preferred present Revision on several grounds, but
during the course of the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19454
3 CRR-1026-2013
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 for last 14 years. Now, petitioner has turned
about 40 years of age. Petitioner has no criminal past, therefore, his jail sentence
be reduced to the period already undergone.
9. 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.
10. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
11. 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.
12. 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 20.12.2013 to 2.1.2014(12 days). At the time
of incident petitioner was man of about 26 years of age and now turn more than 40
years of age. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to reduce
the jail sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
13. Considering the aforesaid, the revision is partly allowed by maintaining
the conviction of the petitioner, but reducing his jail sentence to the period already
undergone by him. The fine amount imposed upon the petitioner by both the
Courts below is hereby affirmed. Petitioner is on bail, his surety and bail bond
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19454
4 CRR-1026-2013
stands discharged.
14. The order regarding disposal of the property as pronounced by the trial
Court is also affirmed.
15. A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Legal Aid Committee,
Gwalior to pass formal order regarding appointment and payment of counsel fee to
the concerned Advocate through Legal Aid in accordance with rules.
16. 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
