Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod Pal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 March, 2025
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.494 OF 2025
VINOD PAL AND ANR
VS.
STATE OF MADHA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ambuj Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mrs. Mamta Mishra, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-
State.
RESERVED ON 13.03.2025
PRONOUNCED ON 27.03.2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This revision having been heard and reserved for order, coming on
for pronouncement this day, the Court pronounced the following:-
ORDER
Instant criminal revision has been filed by the petitioners-
Vinod Pal and Golu @ Deepak Pal under Section 438 of BNSS (U/s
397 of Cr.P.C.) assailing the judgment dated 25.01.2025 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, Berasiya, District Bhopal in Criminal
Appeal No.21/2024 (Vinod Pal and Anr. Vs. State of M.P.), whereby
appeal filed by the petitioners, challenging the judgment dated
19.02.2024 passed by JMFC, Berasiya, District- Bhopal in Criminal
Case No.1149/2017 convicting and sentencing the petitioners under
Section 324/34 of IPC with RI of six months and with fine of
Rs.1,000/- each with default stipulation and petitioner Vinod Pal also
under Section 25 (1-B) (b) of Arms Act and sentencing him to undergo
RI of 1 year and with fine of Rs.1,000/-with default stipulation, has
been dismissed and judgment passed by the trial Court was affirmed.
2. Brief facts relevant for the disposal of present revision are
that on 10.05.2017 at about 18 hours, when complainant's son was
sitting outside house, then, petitioner Golu @ Deepak Pal came and
after abusing the complainant's son asked him as to why he is staring
at him. When complainant's son refuted the same, then, he abused the
complainant filthily. Thereafter, Golu's brother Vinod Pal came armed
with sword and assaulted complainant Jagdish Pal on the head and
petitioner Golu @ Deepak Pal assaulted with stick. Complainant's
wife Parwati Bai came and intervened in the matter. While going from
the scene of incident, petitioners threatened the complainant. During
investigation, on the basis of memorandum of petitioner Vinod Pal,
one sword was recovered.
3. Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 19.02.2024 passed
in RCT No.1149/17 (State of M.P. Vs. Vinod Pal and Anr.), after
evaluation of evidence, convicted and sentenced the petitioners under
Section 324/34 of IPC with RI six months and with fine of Rs.1,000/-
with default stipulation and also convicted petitioner Vinod Pal under
Section 25(1-B) (b) of Arms Act and sentenced him RI for one year
and with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation. Against the
aforesaid judgment, petitioners filed an appeal before the Sessions
Court and Additional Session Judge, Berasiya, District Bhopal vide
judgment dated 25.01.2025 passed in Cr.A.No.21/2024 dismissed the
appeal of the petitioners and affirmed the findings of the trial Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
seizure witnesses have turned hostile and they have deposed that
sword was recovered from victim himself, therefore, recovery of
sword from petitioner Vinod Pal is not established. Further, after
referring to testimony of Dr. Pushpa Guru (PW-7) as well as MLC
(Ex.P/10), it is urged that injuries sustained by complainant/injured
Jagdish Pal has not been caused by sharp edged weapon. It is also
urged that there are two memorandums, one is of petitioner Vinod Pal
and another one is of Golu @ Deepak Pal but on the memorandum of
Vinod Pal, there are signatures of co-petitioner Golu @ Deepak Pal.
Similarly, on the memorandum of Golu @ Deepak Pal, there are
signatures of co-petitioner Vinod Pal. Further, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that sole eye witness PW-1 has turned hostile and
he did not support the prosecution case. Learned trial Court as well as
Appellate Court have erred in convicting and sentencing the
petitioners solely on the testimony of complainant and related witness.
Further, learned trial Court as well as appellate Court did not
appreciate the evidence on record properly.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that from
evidence on record and from suggestions, given to the prosecution
witnesses in their cross-examination as well as Ex.D/2 to Ex.D/8, it is
evident that prior to the incident, there was animosity between the
family of the petitioners as well as complainant and on account of
previous animosity, false FIR has been registered against the
petitioners. Petitioners are in jail since 25.01.2025. Therefore, it has
been prayed that petitioners be sentenced with the period already
undergone by them and fine may be enhanced. . Hence, petition filed
by the petitioners be allowed and the judgment passed by the
Appellate Court as well as trial Court be set-aside and petitioner be
acquitted for the offences, charged with.
6. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent
State has opposed the revision petition and prays for dismissal of the
same.
7. This Court have heard the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record of the case.
Scope of Revision u/s 438 & 442 of B.N.S.S.:-
8. Before analyzing the facts of the case on merits, it
would be appropriate to examine the scope & ambit of criminal
revision/powers of court u/s 438 and 442 of B.N.S.S. In this
connection, this Court would like to refer decisions of Hon'ble Apex
court in State Vs. R. Soundirarasu, AIR 2022 SC 4218, State of
Maharashtra vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand, (2004) 7
SCC 659 & Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration, (1975) 4 SCC 649
(3-Judge Bench).
9. In Duli Chand (supra), Hon'ble Apex court has held as
under:-
"5.........The High Court in revision was
exercising supervisory jurisdiction of a restricted
nature and, therefore, it would have been justified
in refusing to re- appreciate the evidence for the
purposes of determining whether the concurrent
finding of fact reached by the learned Magistrate
and the learned Additional sessions Judge was
correct. But even so, the High Court reviewed the
evidence presumably for the purpose of satisfying
itself that there was evidence in support of the
finding of fact reached by the two subordinate
courts and that the finding of fact was not
unreasonable or perverse "
10. In R. Soundirarasu (supra), Hon'ble Apex court has held
as under:-
"75. In Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.,
(2001) 9 SCC 631: (AIR 2002 SC 107: 2002 cri LJ 225
(SC)), this Court held as under:-
"3.....The revision power under the Code of
Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine
and casual manner. While exercising such powers
the High Court has no authority to appreciate the
evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate
courts are required to do. Revisional powers could
be exercised only when it is shown that there is a
legal bar against the continuance of the criminal
proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as
stated in the first information report even if they are
taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety
do not constitute the offence for which the accused
has been charged."
76. Thus, the revisional power cannot be
exercised in a casual or mechanical manner. It can
only be exercised to correct manifest error of law
or procedure which would occasion injustice, if it is
not corrected. The revisional power cannot be
equated with appellate power. A revisional court
cannot undertake meticulous examination of the
material on record as it is undertaken by the trial
court or the appellate court. This power can only
be exercised if there is any legal bar to the
continuance of the proceedings or if the facts as
stated in the charge-sheet are taken to be true on
their face value and accepted in their entirety do
not constitute the offence for which the accused has
been charged. It is conferred to check grave error
of law or procedure."
11. In Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand (supra), Hon'ble
Apex Court has held as under:-
"21. In embarking upon the minutest re-
examination of the whole evidence at the revisional
stage, the learned Judge of the High Court was
totally oblivious of the self- restraint that he was
required to exercise in a revision under Section 397
Cr.P.C. On behalf of the accused, reliance is
placed on the decision of this Court to which one of
us (Justice Sabharwal) is a party, i.e. Criminal
Appeal No. 523 of 1997 decided on 9.3.2004 [Ram
Briksh v. Ambika Yadav]. That was the case in
which the High Court interfered in revision
because material evidence was overlooked by the
courts below.
22.The Revisional Court is empowered to
exercise all the powers conferred on the Appellate
Court by virtue of the provisions contained in
Section 410 Cr.P.C. Section 401 Cr.P.C. is a
provision enabling the High Court to exercise all
powers of Appellate Court, if necessary, in aid of
power of superintendence or supervision as a part
of power of revision conferred on the High Court
or the Sessions Court. Section 397 Cr.P.C. confers
power on the High Court or Sessions Court, as the
case may be, for the purpose of satisfying itself or
himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety
of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or
passed and as to the regularity of any proceeding
of such inferior court."
It is for the above purpose, if necessary, the
High Court or Sessions Court can exercise all
appellate powers. Section 401 Cr.P.C. conferring
powers of Appellate Court on the Revisional Court
is with the above limited purpose. The provisions
contained in Section 395 to Section 401 Cr.P.C.,
read together, do not indicate that the revisional
power of the High Court can be exercised as a
second appellate power."
12. Recently also, Hon'ble Apex Court in Malkeet Singh Gill
Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2022) 8 SCC 204, after discussing the
scope and ambit of interference in revision by High Court has held as
under:-
"10. Before adverting to the merits of the
contentions, at the outset, it is apt to mention that
there are concurrent findings of conviction arrived
at by two courts after detailed appreciation of the
material and evidence brought on record. The High
Court in criminal revision against conviction is not
supposed to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the
appellate court and the scope of interference in
revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of the
Criminal Procedure Code (in short "CrPC") vests
jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or
himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of
any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed,
and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such
inferior court. The object of the provision is to set
right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or
law. There has to be well-founded error which is to
be determined on the merits of individual case. It is
also well settled that while considering the same,
the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon
the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those
findings.
11. This Court in Manju Ram Kalita v. State of
Assam [Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam,
(2009) 13 SCC 330 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1015] ,
while dealing with the scope of reappreciation of
evidence by higher Court in criminal revision,
observed in paras 9, 10 and 11 of the judgment as
under : (SCC pp. 333-34)
"9. So far as Issue 1 is concerned
i.e. as to whether the appellant got
married with Smt Ranju Sarma, is a pure
question of fact. All the three courts below
have given concurrent finding regarding
the factum of marriage and its validity. It
has been held to be a valid marriage. It is
a settled legal proposition that if the
courts below have recorded the finding of
fact, the question of reappreciation of
evidence by the third court does not arise
unless it is found to be totally perverse.
The higher court does not sit as a regular
court of appeal. Its function is to ensure
that law is being properly administered.
Such a court cannot embark upon fruitless
task of determining the issues by
reappreciating the evidence.
10. This Court would not ordinarily
interfere with the concurrent
findings on pure questions of fact
and review the evidence again
unless there are exceptional
circumstances justifying the
departure from the normal practice.
'9. ... The position may undoubtedly be
different if the inference is one of law from [the]
facts admitted and proved or where the finding of
fact is materially affected by violation of any rule
of law or procedure.' (Vide Sriniwas Ram Kumar
v. Mahabir Prasad [Sriniwas Ram Kumar v.
Mahabir Prasad, 1951 SCC 136], SCC p. 139,
para 9)
11. Thus, it is evident from the above that
this Court being the fourth court should not
interfere with the exercise of discretion by the
courts below as the said courts have exercised
their discretion in good faith giving due weight to
relevant material and without being swayed by
any irrelevant material. Even if two views are
possible on the question of fact, we, being the
fourth court, should not interfere even though we
may exercise discretion differently had the case
come before us initially. In view of the above, we
are not inclined to interfere with the finding of
fact so far as the issue of bigamy is concerned
nor the quantum of punishment on this count is
required to be interfered with."
13. Similarly, A Three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex
Court in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Krishna
Kumar Pandey (2021) 14 SCC 683, has held in para 7 as under:-
7. The scope of the revisional
jurisdiction of the High Court(or Sessions
Court) under Section 397 CrPC, is limited
to the extent of satisfying itself as to the
correctness, legality or propriety of any
finding, sentence or order passed by an
inferior Court. The Revisional Court is
entitled to look into the regularity of any
proceeding before an inferior Court. As
reiterated by this Court in a number of
case, the purpose of this revisional power
is to set right a patent defect or an error of
jurisdiction or law.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS:-
14. Now facts of the case/evidence on record would be
examined in the light of above legal principles.
15. So far as main incident is concerned,
complainant/injured Jagdish Pal (PW-4) has clearly deposed in his
testimony that at alleged date, time and place Vinod assaulted him
with sword on the head and Golu @ Deepak Pal assaulted him with
Danda. His wife Parwati Bai intervened in the matter and two persons
from neighbourhood i.e. Kale Khan and Layik Khan also came. FIR
(Ex.P/2) was lodged by him in the police station. Yashpal (PW-2) and
Parwati Bai (PW-3) have also deposed almost identically to that of
testimony of injured/complainant Jagdish Pal.
16. It is correct that no injury of sharp edged weapon has
been found on the person of Jagdish Pal but having regard to facts of
the case just on aforesaid ground, it cannot be said that injured/Jagdish
Pal is not reliable witness. Further, it is correct that Laik Khan
(PW/1) has turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story.
But aforesaid facts do not render testimony of other prosecution
witnesses suspicious or unreliable.
17. Examination and assessment of depositions of
aforesaid prosecution witnesses, including their cross-examinations,
clearly establish that at alleged date, time and place, petitioner Vinod
Pal assaulted Jagdish Pal with sword and petitioner Golu @ Deepak
Pal assaulted injured Jagdish Pal with danda and thereby caused
various injuries. Perusal of testimony of Dr. Pushpa Guru (PW-7) and
MLC (Ex.P/10) reveals that in medical examination, two lacerated
wounds have been found on the person of the injured/complainant
Jagdish Pal. Further, testimony of Jagdish Pal as well as FIR (Ex. P/2)
reveals that FIR has been lodged against present petitioners. Thus,
medical examination as well as FIR also corroborate testimony of
injured/complainant Jagdish Pal. Further, after going through the
evidence on record, it cannot be said that petitioners have been falsely
implicated in the instant offence on account of previous rivalry.
18. This Court has examined the judgments passed by the
trial court as well as appellate court in the light of evidence available
on record. From aforesaid, it cannot be said that learned trial
court/appellate court, while convicting and sentencing the petitioners,
did not take into consideration any material legal evidence or over
looked any material legal evidence. In this Court's considered opinion,
learned trial court as well as appellate court has taken into
consideration and has examined it in right perspective and findings
recorded by the trial court as well as appellate court are just and proper
with respect to the main incident and no interference is required in the
same.
19. Thus, from evidence on record, it is clearly established
that at alleged date, time and place, petitioners assaulted
injured/Jagdish Pal with sword and danda and thereby caused injuries
found on the person of petitioner Jagdish Pal as mentioned in the MLC
(Ex. P/10). Hence, in the instant case, ingredient constituting offence
under Section 324/34 of IPC stands clearly established.
20. So far as conviction of petitioner Vinod Pal under
Section 25(1-B)(b) of Arms Act is concerned, Pradeep (PW-5) and
Akhilesh (PW-6), witnesses of memorandum and seizure, have turned
hostile and they did not support the prosecution story. Though,
Investigating Officer, ASI C.L. Yadav (PW-8) has deposed in his
examination-in-chief that he recorded petitioners memorandum (Ex.
P/4 and P/5) and on the basis of memorandum, one sword (Article
A/2) was recovered from Vinod Pal vide seizure memo (Ex. P/7).
21. Now question arises as to whether learned trial court
as well as appellate court has appreciated evidence pertaining to
recovery of sword from Vinod Pal appropriately and in right
perspective. Perusal of memorandum Ex. P/4 and Ex. P/5 reveals that
on memorandum of petitioner Vinod Pal (Ex. P/4), there are signature
of co-petitioner Golu @ Deepak Pal, whereas on memorandum of
Golu @ Deepak (Ex. P/5), there are signature of co-petitioner Vinod
Pal. This fact has not been explained by Investigating Officer C.L.
Yadav. Further, Investigating Officer C.L. Yadav has not mentioned in
his examination-in-chief itself as to from where in the house, Vinod
Pal took out sword and get it recovered. In memorandum of Vinod Pal,
only it is mentioned that he had concealed sword in his house.
Similarly in seizure memo (Ex. P/7), it is not mentioned that petitioner
Vinod Pal took out sword from his house and get it recovered. On the
contrary in seizure mem (Ex. P/7), it is mentioned that sword was
recovered in front of house of petitioner's father. Further, there is no
evidence on record to show that sword allegedly recovered from
petitioner Vinod Pal is one and the same which was used for
committing instant offence.
22. Hence, from discussion in the forgoing paras, in this
court's considered opinion, it cannot be said that in pursuance of
memorandum (Ex. P/4), article A/2's sword was recovered from
exclusive possession of petitioner Vinod Pal vide seizure memo (Ex.
P/7).
23. Aforesaid discussion clearly reveals that learned
appellant court as well as trial court did not consider and examine the
evidence available on record pertaining to recovery of sword from
petitioner Vinod Pal appropriately and have materially erred in
convicting and sentencing the petitioner Vinod Pal for offence under
Section 25 (1-B) (b) of Arms Act.
24. Hence, findings recorded by the trial court as well as
appellate court with respect to petitioner Vinod Pal's conviction under
Section 25 (1-B) (b) of Arms Act are set aside and petitioner Vinod
Pal is acquitted of offence under Section 25 (1-B) (b) of Arms Act.
25. So far as sentence under Section 324/34 of IPC is
concerned, learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced petitioners
for offence under Section 324/34 of IPC with RI 6 months and fine of
Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation. It is evident that present case
relates to incident dated 10.05.2017. No injury of sharp edged weapon
has been found on the person of Jagdish Pal. There are no criminal
antecedents of petitioners. Hence, in view of above sentence of
imprisonment as imposed by the trial Court and affirmed by the
appellate Court, appears to be excessive and inappropriate in the facts
and circumstances of the case.
26. Hence, sentence of imprisonment as imposed by the
trial Court/appellate Court is set aside and petitioners are sentenced
under Section 324/34 of IPC with RI of 3 months and fine as imposed
by the trial Court/appellate Court with default stipulation.
27. Petition filed by the petitioners is partly allowed to the
extent as indicated above.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
Hashmi
