Madhya Pradesh High Court
Faizan@Watson vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23380
1 CRR-2942-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 25th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2942 of 2025
FAIZAN@WATSON AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Aman Mourya - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].
Shri Jayesh Yadav appearing on behalf of Advocate General[r-1].
ORDER
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 25.06.2025 passed in
criminal appeal No.196/2024 by the 24th Additional Sessions Judge, District
Indore (M.P.) arising out of the judgment dated 03.06.2024 in criminal case
no.7940797/2013 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class,District Indore
(M.P.) whereby revision petitioners have been convicted under section
324/34 of the IPC (two counts) and sentenced to under go 1-1 years RI with
fine of Rs.500/- each with default stipulation of 05-05 days imprisonment.
The imprisonment was directed to run concurrently and out of the total
amount of fine, Rs.3000/- were ordered to be paid to the victims in equal
portion.
2. Facts of the case in brief is that the revision petitioners were
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23380
2 CRR-2942-2025
prosecuted, convicted and sentenced for incident dated 01.12.2013 happened
at about 11PM near Kadri Grocery Store, Khijrabad, Khajarana, Indore
regrading which a crime number 1032/2013 was registered at police station
Khajarana Indore.
3. Trial court has convicted the revision petitioner under sections
324/34 IPC and sentence to 01-01 years RI with fine of Rs.500/-each for
each offence to be run concurrently. In appeal, the conviction under section
324/34 was upheld by learned first appellate Court.
4. The revision petition has been preferred on the ground that
conviction is bad in law and sentence does not satisfy the standard of
proportionality, simple imprisonment serves no purpose in an incident
happened 12 years ago and the petitioners have already undergone two and
half months each out of their incarceration period.
5. Heard finally with the consent of parties at motion stage.
6. Counsel for the respondent/State opposes the revision petition.
7. Perused the record.
8. Conviction of the revision petitioners under section 324/34 of the
IPC does not suffer any illegality as per the testimony Aman Gauri PW-1,
Athar PW-2, Dr. Afzal PW-6,T.R. Chouhan PW-9 and Damodar PW-10. of
Dilip Singh Chouhan (PW-5) has found proved. Accordingly, conviction of
the revision petitioners under section 324/34 of the IPC is affirmed.
9 . Short sentence serves no purpose as the petitioners have already
undergone the period of 2 and half months sentence of imprisonment. There
is no criminal antecedent. Sending the revision petitioners in jail will protect
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23380
3 CRR-2942-2025
the society only for a period of 9 months whereas the provision of Probation
of Offenders Act, 1958 will protect the society for a period of 3 years and
will provide an opportunity to the revision petitioner to live a dignified
life. Therefore, in the light of Mukesh vs. State of M.P - 2016 (3) MPWN
274, Lakhanlal @ Lakhan Singh vs. State of M.P - 2019 (2) JLJ 457 , and
considering the nature of offence and circumstances of the case and accused
being first offender it is a fit case where the benefits of Section 4 of
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be extended to accused/petitioners.
10. Therefore, instead of directing the accused/revision petitioners at
once to undergo imprisonment, it is directed that they shall be released under
the provision of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on
probation of good conduct for a period of three years subject to their
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Thousand) each to the effect that they shall keep peace and be of good
behaviour during the said period of three years and shall appear to receive
sentence when called upon by the Court.
11. Under Section 5 of Probation Of Offenders Act, 1958 the accused
Faizan @ Watsan, Nadeen Khan and Farhan @ Tengri shall also pay
Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten Thousand only) each as compensation for the
commission of the offence. They shall deposit the compensation amount
within 60 days failing which the said amount shall be recovered from them
in accordance with law. Out of the amount to be deposited by the petitioners,
an amount of Rs.15000/- each shall be paid to the injured Aman Gauri and
Athar Ali. The amount if any already deposited by the petitioners or paid to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23380
4 CRR-2942-2025
the injured, shall be adjusted.
12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the
injured/complainant Aman Gauri PW-1 and Athar Ali PW-2 for information.
13. In view of the aforesaid, criminal revision is partly allowed and
disposed off.
14. Record of the trial court be remitted back.
C.C. as per rules.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
amit
