Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2025
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21456
1 CRR-1471-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 7 th OF MAY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1471 of 2025
MUKESH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Anil Kumar Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri A.V.S. Suni Rao - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.PC. has been
preferred against the judgment dated 20.03.2025 passed by learned Sessions
Judge, Khandwa, in Criminal Appeal No.48/2024 (Mukesh Vs. State of MP),
whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner against judgment dated
20.03.2024, passed by the learned JMFC, Khandwa in RCT No. 444/2020,
convicting the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 324 of
IPC and sentencing with S.I. of 6 months and with fine of Rs.1000/- with
default stipulation, has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of present revision are that on
08.05.2020 at in between 14:00 to 14:15, applicant assaulted injured Shriram
Gurjar with axe on the head as well as below left ear.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant, after referring to testimony of
Gopal (PW/1) and Shriram Gurjar (PW-2), especially their cross-
examination, submits that learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21456
2 CRR-1471-2025
erred in convicting and sentencing applicant under Section 324 of IPC.
Learned Trial Court did not take into consideration facts mentioned in cross-
examination of Shriram Gurjar (PW-2). It is urged that there is no FSL report
on record pertaining to axe allegedly recovered from applicant and no blood
stain has been found on the axe. Learned Trial Court as well as Appellate
Court has not appreciated evidence on record in right perspective. Dr. Anjali
Jaiswal (PW-6) has admitted in her cross-examination that if head of the
person gets collided with pointed door, then, injury sustained by the injured,
may be caused. It is also urged that applicant has undergone sentence of
more than one month, No minimum sentence is prescribed under Section 324
of IPC. Therefore, petitioner be sentenced with the period already
undergone by him.
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that in the facts and
circumstances of the case, applicant cannot be sentenced with the period
already undergone. He further submits that trial Court has rightly convicted
and sentenced the appellant. No interference is required in the same and
petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.
5 . I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
of the trial Court minutely.
6. So far as conviction of petitioner under Section 324 of IPC is
concerned, prosecution witness Shriram Gurjar (PW-2) and Gopal (PW-1)
have clearly stated in their examination-in-chief that petitioner assaulted
Shriram Gurjar with axe on the head. Perusal of cross-examination of
aforesaid prosecution witnesses reveals that they have been extensively cross
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21456
3 CRR-1471-2025
examined on behalf of the petitioner but nothing substantial has come out in
their cross-examinations, so as to make their testimonies unreliable. Further,
perusal of deposition of aforesaid prosecution witness reveals that there are
no material contradictions, omissions and discrepancies in Court testimonies
of aforesaid prosecution witness and their police statements. Aforesaid
prosecution witnesses are wholly reliable.
7. From testimony of Gopal (PW-1) and FIR (Ex. P/1), it is evident
that FIR has been lodged on the date of incident itself and therein also it is
mentioned that petitioner assaulted Shriram Gurjar with axe on his head as
well as on the left side of his ear. Perusal of testimony of Gopal (PW-1)
reveals that there are no material contradictions, omissions and discrepancies
in the court testimony of Gopol and FIR (Ex. P/1) lodged by the witness.
Hence, FIR (Ex. P/1) also corroborates testimony of Shriram Gurjar.
8. So far as medical testimony is concerned, Dr. Anjali Jaiswal (PW-
6) has deposed in her examination-in-chief that she examined injured
Shriram Gurjar on 08.05.2020 and in examination, she found one incised
wound in middle of forehead and one incised wound behind left ear of
injured Shriram Gurjar. It is evident from Ex. P/6 and testimony of Dr.
Anjali Jaiswal that injured Shriram Gurjar has been medically examined on
the date of incident itself. It is correct that Dr. Anjali Jaiswal has admitted in
her cross-examination that if a person had collided with some pointed door,
then, injury sustained by the injured may be caused. Perusal of cross-
examination of Shriram Gurjar (PW-2) and Gopal (PW-1) reveals that no
such suggestion has been given to aforesaid prosecution witness that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21456
4 CRR-1471-2025
injury sustained by the Shriram Gurjar was a result of colliding with some
pointed door. Thus, it is not established that injury, sustained by the injured
Shriram on the date of incident, is not a result of assault by the applicant.
Thus, medical testimony also corroborate from a testimony of injured
Shriram Gurjar.
9 . Further, during submissions, learned counsel for the applicant
failed to point out any material illegality or perversity in the finding recorded
by the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court with respect to applicant's
conviction under Section 324 of IPC.
10. Hence, in view of aforesaid, findings recorded by the Trial Court
as well as Appellate Court with respect to applicant's conviction under
Section 324 of IPC cannot be interfered with. Hence, the same are affirmed.
11. So far as sentence is concerned, learned Trial Court has
sentenced petitioner under Section 324 of IPC with S.I. 6 month and with
fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner has undergone sentence of more than one month. No
minimum sentence is prescribed under Section 324 of IPC. There are no
criminal antecedents of applicant. Only one injury is said to have been
caused by petitioner. Therefore, petitioner be sentenced with the period
already undergone by him and with fine imposed by the trial Court.
12. On the question of sentence, this Court has examined
submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. Perusal of record of the
case reveals that petitioner has assaulted 59 years old person with axe on
middle of forehead as well as behind left ear. Thus, petitioner assaulted
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21456
5 CRR-1471-2025
twice injured Shriram Gurjar with axe on vital part of the body. Hence, it
does not appear appropriate to sentence petitioner with period already
undergone by him.
13. Resultantly, no interferes is required in the sentence imposed by
the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court.
14. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed.
1 5 . A copy of this order be sent forthwith to learned trial court/
appellate court, Khandwa & concerned jail for information & necessary
action.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
L.R.
