Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raju Singh Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 July, 2025
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34732
1 CRR-2865-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 29th OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2865 of 2025
RAJU SINGH LODHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Ms. Rashi Dua - Advocate for the applicant.
Smt. Geeta Yadav - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This revision petition under Section 438/442 of BNSS, 2023 has
been filed by the applicant assailing the appeal judgment dated
18.06.2025 (Annexure-A/2) passed by learned IInd Additional Session
Judge, Hata, Sessions Division Damoh District Damoh (MP) in Criminal
Appeal No.07/2022 (Raju Singh Lodhi & Others Vs. State of M.P. )
whereby learned Appellate Court has partly allowed the appeal preferred
against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
25.01.2022 (Annexure-A/1) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Hata, District Damoh (MP) in RCT No.500809/2016 (State of
M.P. Vs. Raju Singh Lodhi ) whereby applicant/accused alongwith other
co-accused was convicted for commission of offence under Section
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34732
2 CRR-2865-2025
325/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and directed to
pay fine of Rs.600/- with default stipulations. The learned appellate court
has modified the applicant's conviction under Section 325/34 IPC to
Section 325 of IPC and has also modified the applicant's jail sentence
from one year R.I. with fine of Rs.600/- to six months R.I. with fine of
Rs.600/-.
2 As per the prosecution story, on 08.08.2016, applicant alongwith co-
accused persons abused the complainant and committed maar-peet with
him by means of wood-stick and also by kicks & fists causing voluntarily
hurt to him. FIR was registered at FIR No.102/2016 for offence under
Sections 323, 294, 506-B, 34 of IPC.
3 On completion of investigation, applicant/accused was charge-
sheeted for commission of offence under Sections 294, 325/34, 506 part-
II of IPC. Charges were framed by the learned JMFC, Hata, Damoh.
4 After recording evidence of the parties and hearing them, learned
J.M.F.C. found the prosecution case proved in respect of offence under
Section 325/34 of IPC and convicted & sentenced the applicant as stated
above in preceding paragraph No.1; but acquitted the applicant/accused
for offence under Sections 294, 506 part-II of IPC. An appeal was
preferred by the applicant/accused before the Court of Sessions and
learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Hata, District Damoh partly
allowed the appeal and modified the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence as stated herein above. Hence, this criminal revision.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34732
3 CRR-2865-2025
5 At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted
that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the
applicant/accused under Section 325 of IPC passed by the Appellate
Court. It is submitted that only six months sentence has been awarded by
the Appellate Court to the applicant for the said offence and out of that,
he has already suffered approximately a period of one month & twelve
days so far. Therefore, it is prayed that jail sentence awarded to the
applicant may be reduced to the period of jail sentence already
undergone by him.
6 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State has
supported the findings given by the Appellate Court and has prayed for
dismissal of the revision.
7 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the findings
recorded by the Courts below & the material available on record.
8 Learned Appellate Court has duly appreciated the oral and
documentary evidence on record and has rightly come to the conclusion
that applicant has committed offence under Section 325 of IPC. There
are no reasons to interfere with the findings recorded by the Appellate
Court. Therefore, conviction of applicant for commission of offence
under Section 325 of IPC passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge being just and proper is hereby affirmed.
9 As far as, prayer for reduction of jail sentence of applicant is
concerned, it is apparent that applicant has already suffered
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34732
4 CRR-2865-2025
approximately a period of one month & twelve days as substantive jail
sentence, therefore, I am of the view that it would be just and proper, if
jail sentence awarded to applicant is reduced/modified to the period
already undergone by him so far.
10 Therefore, having taken into consideration the above submissions
and others facts & circumstances of the case, it appears just and proper to
modify the sentence. Therefore, applicant's jail sentence of RI for six
months (as passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hata, Sessions Division
Damoh, District Damoh) for commission of offence under Section 325
of IPC is modified and applicant/accused is sentenced to the period of
jail sentence already undergone by him so far by enhancing the fine
amount. Thus, as far the jail sentence of the applicant is concerned, it is
modified and is reduced to the period already undergone by him by
enhancing the fine amount from Rs.600/- to Rs.10,000/-.
11 Applicant is directed to deposit the enhanced fine amount as
quantified by this Court before the trial Court within a period of one
month from today. The amount of fine, if any, already deposited be
adjusted.
12 Registry/trial Court is directed to prepare super-session
warrant/release warrant and to send the same to the Superintendent of
jail/Jail authorities concerned with a direction that if applicant/accused is
not required in any other case, he be released in this case
forthwith. However, it is clarified that if fine amount as quantified by this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34732
5 CRR-2865-2025
Court is not deposited within a period of one month from today,
applicant would surrender himself to serve out the entire jail sentence as
awarded by the learned Courts below with default stipulations.
13 The order of the Trial Court with regard to the disposal of the
property is affirmed.
14 Learned Trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.
15 Consequently, this criminal revision is disposed of with the
aforesaid modification in the sentence.
16 Let records of the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court along with
copy of this order be sent down to Court concerned for information and
necessary compliance through the Sessions Judge, Damoh (MP).
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
@shish
