Soniya vs The State Of M. P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 328 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Soniya vs The State Of M. P. on 5 May, 2025

Author: Prem Narayan Singh

Bench: Prem Narayan Singh

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12057




                                                               1                               CRR-1363-2025
                                IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT INDORE
                                                          BEFORE
                                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
                                             CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1363 of 2025
                                                   SONIYA AND OTHERS
                                                           Versus
                                                    THE STATE OF M. P.
                           Appearance:

                                 Shri Vinod Kaushal - advocate for the petitioner.

                                 Shri Tarun Pagare - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.


                                                         Heard on : 25.04.2025
                                                        Pronounced on : 05.05.2025

                                                                ORDER

This criminal revision under Section 438 r/w Sec 442 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhikangoan, Mandleshwar, District Khargone in Cr.A. No.03/2022 affirming the judgment dated 01.02.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhikangaon, Mandleshwar, District Khargone in RCT No.400904/2015 whereby each of the petitioners have

been convicted for offence under Section 325/34, of IPC, 1860 and sentenced to undergo for 6 months R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- and usual default stipulations.

2. The petitioners have preferred this criminal revision on several grounds but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners did not press this revision on merits and not assail the finding of conviction part of judgment. He confines his argument on the point of sentence only and prays that since the petitioners have already undergone more than 45 days in jail

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12057

2 CRR-1363-2025

incarceration out of six months custody period, hence their sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. It is further submitted that the petitioners deserve some leniency as the petitioners have already suffered the ordeal of the trial since 2015. It is further submitted that this petition be partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioners be reduced to the period already undergone by maintaining the fine amount.

3. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supports the impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of this revision.

4. Having considered the rival submissions, I have gone through the record.

5. However, the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court

has not committed any error in appreciation of evidence available on record. Further, it is found that the prosecution case is well supported by the prosecution witnesses as well as documentary evidence. Both the Courts below have well considered the material available on record, hence, no infirmity is found in the impugned order of conviction passed by both the Courts below, accordingly, the same is upheld.

6. So far as the sentence of the petitioners is concerned, taking into consideration that the incident had taken place in the year 2015 and further the petitioners have already undergone more than 45 days out of total incarceration of 6 months, this Court is of the view that the conviction and sentence of the petitioners under section 325/34 of IPC, 1860 the jail sentence under this offence is reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the fine amount of each of the petitioners from Rs.500/- to Rs.10,000/- Out of the fine amount so deposited by the petitioner, Rs.20,000/- be paid to injured Jagdish under Section

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12057

3 CRR-1363-2025

357(3) of Cr.P.C. by the trial Court.

7. The fine amount, if already deposited as well as the compensation amount paid to the injured if any shall be adjusted.

8. The petitioners are in jail. After depositing the enhanced fine amount, they be set at liberty forthwith immediately if not required in jail in any other case. Subject to depositing of fine amount, their bail bond, if any, shall stand discharged. If the petitioners fail to deposit the fine amount, they will suffer 1 month of simple imprisonment in default.

9. The order of learned trial Court regarding disposal of the seized property, if any, stands confirmed.

10. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance.

11. Pending application, if any, stands closed.

Certified copy, as per rules.

(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE

sumathi