Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rameshchandra Rai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 May, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24096
1 CRR-2552-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 1 st OF MAY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2552 of 2024
RAMESHCHANDRA RAI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri R.K. Patel - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri A.S.Baghel - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 16.04.2024 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge,
Pipariya, District Narmadapuram in Criminal Appeal No.10/2021 arising out of
judgment dated 25.08.2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Pipariya,
District Narmadapuram in Criminal Case No.601516/2015 affirming the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court whereby the petitioner
has been convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, with default
stipulations.
2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that the complainant and the petitioner
were known to each other. On 19.11.2015 at about 07.30 PM, the petitioner has
committed Marpeet with the complainant by Danda and and gave punch to the
complainant in the agriculture field only for the reason that the complainant has
used the electricity of the petitioner without his permission. The complainant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24096
2 CRR-2552-2024
sustained injuries in his right hand. Thereafter, an FIR has been registered against
the petitioner for the offence under Section 294, 323/24 and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code on 20.11.2015 at Crime No.117/15 and at the time of filing of the
charge sheet Section 325 of the IPC. was added. The petitioner has also lodged an
FIR against the complainant at Crime No.116/2015 for the offence punishable
under Sections 294, 325 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. After completion of the
investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
3. The petitioner abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. To bring home
the charges, after filing of the charge sheet, the prosecution examined as many as
8 witnesses including injured complainant Jitendra Rai (PW/1), and Dr.
A.K.Agrawal (PW/7). Upon consideration of the entire evidence, learned trial
Judge, for the reasons assigned in the judgment under challenge, found the
petitioner held guilty under Section 323 of the IPC. Aggrieved by the same, an
appeal was filed before the Sessions Court which was dismissed. Hence, the
present Criminal Revision.
4. The petitioner has preferred this revision on several grounds and during the
course of arguments, pressed on merits inasmuch as there are material
contradictions and omissions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. It is
submitted that the complainant has also committed Marpeet with the petitioner and
the petitioner received grievous injuries over jaw and teeth were broken. The
learned Trial Court has committed an error in convicting the petitioner and has
overlooked the fact that the petitioner has lodged an FIR at Crime No.116/2015
against the complainant. Fine amount has already been deposited by the petitioner.
The learned Court below has committed an error while passing the impugned
judgment. The learned Court below has not considered all the aspects of the matter
while passing the impugned judgment and has wrongly convicted the petitioner for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24096
3 CRR-2552-2024
the aforesaid offences. Under these circumstances, he has prayed to dispose off
this revision and reduce the sentence to that already undergone by him by
enhancing the fine amount.
5. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State has
opposed the prayer but has not controverted the facts submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the
impugned judgment passed by learned trial court as well as by the appellate court
and statements of prosecution witnesses; particularly complainant Jitendra Rai
(PW-1) and Dr. A.K.Agrawal (PW-7), this court is of the considered opinion that
no error has been committed by learned courts below in recording the guilt of the
petitioner as mentioned hereinabove and in convicting and sentencing him as
mentioned hereinabove on the basis of aforesaid witnesses. Testimony of
witnesses is alone of sterling quality and can be the basis of conviction of the
petitioner and cannot be brushed aside on these simple reasons that some
contradictions, omissions are present in their statements. Other discrepancies
which have been highlighted in the statement of prosecution witnesses do not
really earn status of contraction to make the evidence of Jitendra (PW-1) and Dr.
A.K.Agrawal (PW-7), impeachable, incredible and not beyond reproach.
7. Now the question arises that as to how a balance should be struck and
maintained in regard to the sentence.
8. As far the quantum of sentence is concerned, it is undisputed that the
petitioner has suffered imprisonment till the rising of the Court. Therefore, taking
into consideration the aforesaid fact, it does not appear to be just and proper to
uphold the sentence of the petitioner awarded by the learned trial court. This court
is of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be sub-served if the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24096
4 CRR-2552-2024
sentence of the petitioner upto rising of the Court is set aside.
9. In the result, the revision is allowed in part. The impugned sentence of the
petitioner upto rising of the Court is set aside. In view of Section 357 of Cr.P.C.,
the compensation amount of Rs.1,000/- is enhanced to Rs.3,000/-. The petitioner
is directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) to
the complainant injured person; namely Jitendra Rai (PW-1) within a period of 15
days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order while giving an
undertaking before the trial Court that if he fails to pay Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three
Thousand Only) then trial Court would proceed against him to serve jail sentence
in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Penal Code/BNS.
10. With the aforesaid modification, the present revision is partly allowed and
disposed off.
11. A copy of the judgment along with the records of the courts below be sent
immediately to the court concerned for information and necessary action.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
AM
