Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shyam Sundar Dwivedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29967
1 CRR-1355-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 8 th OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1355 of 2025
SHYAM SUNDAR DWIVEDI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Shashank Upadhyay - Advocate and Shri Shankar Dayal Mishra -
Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Akshay Namdeo - Government Advocate appearing on behalf of
the respondent/State.
ORDER
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard
finally at motion hearing stage.
2. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicants under
Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the
judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.03.2025 passed in
Cr.A.No.16/2018 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi Link Court
Rampur Naikin, District Sidhi, whereby the Appellate Court has affirmed the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.07.2017 passed in
Criminal Case No.484/2013 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rampur
Naikin, District Sidhi, whereby the applicants were convicted for the offence
punishable under Sections 325/34, 324/34 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29967
2 CRR-1355-2025
and sentenced thereunder to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.500/-,
RI for three months with fine of Rs.300/- and fine of Rs.200/- respectively,
with default stipulations.
3. Prosecution case in nutshell is that on 29.05.1998 at about 05.00 pm,
when the complainant was returning from the house of Ramdhani Dubey,
then the accused persons met him and started beating him. As per
prosecution case, at the relevant point of time, accused Shiv Prasad was
having a tangi in his hand, who assaulted the complainant and as a result
whereof, the complainant fell down. The other accused persons were having
gandasa and other arms and assaulted the complainant. When the
complainant cried for help, then Sampatti Kumar Tiwari (PW-1), Ramakant
Tripathi (PW-8), Amreesh Prasad Dwivedi (PW-2) and Shivadhar reached
there and saved him. All the accused persons ran away from the spot. The
complainant was brought to the Police Station Rampur Naikin on a jeep and
thereafter, vide Crime No.90/98, an FIR was lodged under Sections 341, 294,
147, 323 and 506 of the IPC against 08 accused persons. The injured was
medically examined. However, after investigation, charge-sheet was
submitted against 03 accused persons, who are the applicants before this
Court.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the
complainant (PW-6) has made vague and omnibus allegations against all the
applicants. He has further submitted that in the FIR, no specific role of the
present applicants has been assigned. He has further submitted that there was
previous dispute regarding an agricultural land between the parties and to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29967
3 CRR-1355-2025
implicate the whole family and other persons, the complainant has falsely
deposed before the Court whereas after making investigation, the police has
filed the charge-sheet only against 03 persons which shows that the eye
witness is not fully reliable. Furthermore, the independent witnesses namely
Sampatti Kumar Tiwari (PW-1), Amreesh Prasad Dwivedi (PW-2) and Gopal
Choudhary (PW-3) have not supported the prosecution case. He has further
submitted that from the cross-examination of another witness Ramakant
Tripathi (PW-8), it is clear that there was a dispute of an agricultural land
and house between the applicants and Ramakant Tripathi (PW-8) and the
matter was pending before the Civil Court, decree was passed in favour of
the applicants, hence this witness cannot be said that he is an independent
witness and from the aforesaid, it can be ascertained that the applicants have
been falsely implicated in the case. He has submitted that from the statement
of defence witness, it is proved that the applicants were either not present on
the spot or were falsely implicated in the case due to proceeding of civil case.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that the
applicants are facing the legal proceedings since 11.10.1998 and thus, 26
years have passed, hence, the jail sentence awarded to the applicants be
limited to the period already undergone.
6. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate appearing on
behalf of the respondent/State has opposed the submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that in the FIR, the names
of the applicants have been mentioned and in the statement, the complainant
has specifically mentioned the role of Shiv Prasad saying that at the relevant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29967
4 CRR-1355-2025
point of time, he was having a tangi whereas Brajmohan @ Ramkrishna was
having an iron rod and their role has been specifically stated by the
complainant (PW-6). He has further stated that the doctor has approved the
injuries caused by the iron rod and sharp cutting object saying that the victim
has suffered 31 injuries in which he has suffered the fracture in the right
tibia, left fibula and fifth metacarpal of the right hand. Hence, the case is
proved against the applicants. He has submitted that under such
circumstances, the revision deserves to be dismissed.
7. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
8. I have gone through the statement of the complainant in which it is
admitted that there was a dispute between the applicants and injured and
there are chances of false implication, but the enmity is in double edge
weapon and when one side gives a motive for the applicants to cause the
offence then the complainant gets a reason to falsely implicate the accused
persons. However, in the FIR, the names of three accused persons have been
clearly mentioned and in the deposition before the Court, the complainant
has clearly stated that all these three persons were present and further stated
that at the relevant point of time, Shiv Prasad was having a tangi whereas
Brajmohan @ Ramkrishna was having an iron rod and in furtherance of
common intention, they assaulted him with an axe and iron rod. Report was
immediately lodged and that has been proved as Exhibit P/9.
9. The injuries sustained by the complainant (PW-6) are also supported
by the Medical Officer (PW-4), who has clearly stated that there were
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29967
5 CRR-1355-2025
incised wound measuring 2 inches x 1/2 inch x bone deep in the occipital
region, incised wound measuring 1 inch x 1/2 inch x bone deep in occipital
region, third incised wound measuring 1 inch x 1/2 inch x bone deep in the
back of occipital region, margins were clearly cut, a lacerated wound in the
occipital region, a lacerated wound in the right parietal region measuring 1
inch x 1/2 inch x skin deep, a swelling in the left parietal region, bruise and
as such, 31 injuries were found. Injuries suffered in right tibia bone and left
fibula were grievous as the fracture was caused in these bones and fracture
was also found in fifth metacarpal of the right hand.
10. The defence witness Dr. V.B. Singh (DW-3) has also supported
that on 10.07.1998, the injured Dayashankar (PW-6) was examined by the
medical board consisting of Dr. S.B. Singh, Dr. Uday Singh and he himself
and found five healed scar marks; two in the parietal region, two in the
occipital region and one blow in the occipital region. All the injuries were
healed. Thus, from the aforesaid statement, it is also clear that the
complainant had suffered the injuries in his head. Rest of the injuries were
healed by the time.
11. Looking to the nature of injuries, it cannot be said that the injuries
were self inflicted and in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the case
is false or the applicants have been wrongly convicted by the trial Court and
Appellate Court.
12. Hence, the conviction of the applicants punishable under Sections
325/34, 324/34 and 341 of the IPC is hereby affirmed.
13. Looking to the nature of offence and injuries suffered by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29967
6 CRR-1355-2025
victim, as the trial Court has already sentenced the applicants leniently, no
interference on the sentence is called for. Hence, the sentence imposed by the
trial Court is affirmed.
14. With the above observation, the revision petition is dismissed.
15. Let the record of trial Court so also Appellate Court be returned
back.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
dm
