Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kalu@ Prakash vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23755
1 CRR-3433-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 26th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3433 of 2025
KALU@ PRAKASH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Pankaj Ajmera - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Rahul Solanki appearing on behalf of Advocate General[r-1].
ORDER
Heard on I.A. No.10724/2025, an application for condonation of delay of 270
days in preferring the present revision petition.
2. For the reasons assigned in the application, the application is allowed and the
delay in filing this Criminal Revision is hereby condoned.
3. This criminal revision under section 438 read with section 442 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by
the judgment dated 29.07.2024 in criminal appeal No.19/2021 by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Bhikangaon, West Nimar, Mandleshwar (M.P.) arising out of the
judgment dated 02.09.2021 in RCT No.200410/2024 by the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Bhikangaon whereby revision petitioners have been convicted under section 325
of the IPC and sentenced to under go 1-1 year RI with fine of Rs.500/- each with
default stipulation of 15-15 days imprisonment.
4. Facts of the case in brief is that revision petitioner was put on trial under
section 325 ad 504 of the IPC for causing fracture on neck of the complainant on
03.06.2014 regarding which crime no.176/2014 was registered at Police Station
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23755
2 CRR-3433-2025
Goganva and final report was submitted against accused revision petitioners under
sections 325, 323 and 504 of the IPC.
5. Trial court has convicted the revision petitioners under sections 325 IPC and
sentence to 1-1 years RI with fine of Rs.5,00/- each. In appeal the conviction under
section 325 of the IPC was affirmed by learned first appellate Court as mentioned in
para-1 of the judgment.
6. The revision petition has been preferred on the ground that testimony of
witness is contradictory and cannot be relied upon. There is allegations is only to cause
injury on neck of the injured and no grievous hurt is caused to the injured. The revision
petitioners are aged about 25 and 30 years old only.
7. Heard with the consent of parties at motion stage.
8. Counsel for the respondent/State opposes the revision petition.
9. Perused the record.
10. Conviction of the revision petitioner under section 325 of the IPC does not
suffer any illegality in view of the statements of the material witnesses i.e. complainant
Bablu PW-1, Golu Chouhan PW-2 which is further corroborated by Medical Report
Ex.P/9 wherein the injured Bablu PW-1 has received four injuries. Accordingly,
conviction of the revision petitioners under section 325 of the IPC is affirmed.
11. Short sentence serves no purpose as the petitioners have already undergone
the period of 02 months sentence of imprisonment. Accordingly, in spite of rest of the
sentence of imprisonment, enhancement of fine amount will serve the purpose and the
compensation amount provide relief to the victim. Hence, the revision petition is partly
allowed and the sentence of 1-1 years under Section 325 of IPC is modified and
reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone and the fine is enhanced from
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23755
3 CRR-3433-2025
Rs.500/- to Rs.15000/- each i.e. total Rs.30000/-. In case of failure to deposit the
enhanced amount, the revision petitioners shall undergo 3-3 moths of Rigorous
Imprisonment.
12. The amount of fine of Rs.30000/-, if deposited by the revision petitioners,
shall be paid to the victim/Babloo S/o Ganpat, R/o Village Dehgaon, Chouki Ahirkheda
Police Station Goganwa, District Khargone as compensation under Section 357(1) of
Cr.P.C. The amount of fine, if any already deposited by the revision petitioners, shall be
adjusted.
13. A copy of this order be sent by the Registry to the victim for information.
14. In view of the aforesaid, criminal revision is partly allowed and disposed off.
15. Record of the trial court be remitted back.
C.C. as per rules.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
amit
