Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunder vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 July, 2025
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35398
1 CRR-1958-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 31 st OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1958 of 2015
SUNDER AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri C.S. Parmar - Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Amit Mishra - Panel lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This revision petition under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C has been filed by the
applicants assailing the appeal judgment dated 10.08.2015 (Annexure-A/1) passed
by learned VII Additional Session Judge, Jabalpur (MP) in Criminal Appeal
No.313/2014 (Sundar and Others Vs. State of M.P. ) whereby learned Appellate
Court has dismissed the appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 19.09.20214 (Annexure-A/2) passed by learned CJM,
Jabalpur (MP) in Criminal Case No.699/2003 (State of M.P. Vs. Sundar &
Others) whereby applicants/accused were convicted for commission of offence
under Sections 325/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months &
directed to pay fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations has been affirmed.
2 As per the prosecution story, complainant, Bhura @ Ram Pravesh
appeared before the Police Station Civil Lines, Jabalpur and lodged a complaint
stating that Kamlesh has given his wrist watch to him in mortgage for a sum of
Rs.45/-. On 06.04.2003, at around 5:00 P.M., Kamlesh, Sundar Kol and Deepak
Kol came and asked him to return the watch and keep Rs.10/- in exchange. When
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35398
2 CRR-1958-2015
he refused to return the watch, they started to abuse him with filthy language
related to mother and sister and threatened to eliminate him and started to beat
him with fists. Accused Kamlesh gave him fist blow which caused injury on his
face and his tooth got broken. Incident was witnessed by Guddu and Amarnath.
On the basis of his complaint, FIR was registered.
3 After recording evidence of the parties and hearing them, learned
CJM found the prosecution case proved in respect of offence under Sections
325/34 of IPC and convicted & sentenced the applicants as stated above. An
appeal was preferred by the applicants/accused before the Court of Sessions and
learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur dismissed the appeal. Hence, this
criminal revision.
5 At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that
he does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicants/accused under
Section 325/34 of IPC passed by the Appellate Court with regard to applicant
Kamlesh and Deepak as Kamlesh has already died and Deepak has already served
out the entire jail sentence. It is submitted that only six months sentence has been
awarded by the Appellate Court to the applicants for the said offence and out of
that, applicant No.1 - Sunder has suffered approximately a period of 15 days so
far. Applicant No.2 has died and applicant No.3 has served out the entire
sentence. Therefore, it is prayed that jail sentence awarded to the applicants may
be reduced to the period of jail sentence already undergone by them.
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35398
3 CRR-1958-2015
8 Learned Appellate Court has duly appreciated the oral and
documentary evidence on record and has rightly come to the conclusion that
applicants have committed offence under Section 325/34 of IPC. There are no
reasons to interfere with the findings recorded by the Appellate Court. Therefore,
conviction of applicants for commission of offence under Section 325/34 of IPC
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge being just and proper is hereby
affirmed.
9 This is a matter in which incident took place long back in the year 2003
almost 22 years ago. As far as, prayer for reduction of jail sentence of applicant
No.3 Deepak is concerned, it is apparent that he has already served out the entire
jail sentence. So far as applicant No.1 - Sunder is concerned, he has served
around 15 days as substantive jail sentence, therefore, I am of the view that it
would be just and proper, if jail sentence awarded to applicant Sunder 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 Sunder's jail sentence of RI for six months (as
passed by CJM, Jabalpur) and affirmed by appellate Court for commission of
offence under Section 325/34 of IPC is modified and applicants/accused Sunder is
sentenced to the period of jail sentence already undergone by him so far by
enhancing the fine amount and is reduced to the period already undergone by him
them by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.500/- to Rs.8,000/- .
11 Applicant No.1 - Sunder 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 If applicant No.1 - Sunder is on bail, his bail bond shall stand
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35398
4 CRR-1958-2015
discharged. However, it is clarified that if fine amount as quantified by this Court
is not deposited within a period of one month from today, applicant Sunder shall
surrender before trial Court to serve out the entire jail sentence as awarded by the
learned Court 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, Jabalpur (MP).
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
Jasleen
