Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghuraj Singh vs The State Of M.P. on 7 May, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10156
1 CRR-93-2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 7 th OF MAY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 93 of 2007
RAGHURAJ SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Shobhendra Kumar Tiwari - advocate for the petitioner [P-1].
Shri Yogesh Parashar - PP for the respondent/State.
ORDER
With the consent of both the parties, matter is heard finally.
This criminal revision under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C has been filed by the
petitioner being aggrieved by impugned judgment dated 17.01.2007 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Sevdha in Criminal Appeal No.64 of 2006 whereby the
judgment dated 28.10.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sevdha
District - Datia in Criminal Case No.175 of 1999 by which, the petitioner has been
convicted under section 326 of IPC and sentenced to undergo three years R.I with fine
of Rs. 1000/- with usual default stipulation, has been affirmed.
The prosecution story in brief is that on 07.03.1999 at about 5 PM in village
Shyampahadi at about 12 Noon, the complainant Chandraprakash was at his home, at
that time, petitioner Raghuraj came and started abusing wife of the complainant. When
complainant tried to restrain him, he also hurled filthy abuses upon him and assaulted
the complainant by axe on his right hand's wrist due to which, complainant sustained
injuries. The incident was witnessed by Khushiram and,Mankunwar and Arjun. On the
same day, complainant lodged FIR at PS Indergarh. MLC of the complainant was
conducted at PSC Indergarh. Accordingly, the offence has been registered.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10156
2 CRR-93-2007
After conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner
before the JMFC, Sevdha who framed charges under Sections 294 and 326 of IPC
against the petitioner accused. The petitioner accused abjured his guilt and took a plea
that he has been falsely been implicated in this matter. The trial Court after scrutinizing
evidence available on record and considering the rival submissions made by both the
parties, convicted accused petitioner for the offence as sated herein above. Being
aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner accused preferred criminal
appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sevdha but the same was dismissed by
the Appellate Court. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, this criminal revision has
been preferred before this Court by the petitioner.
The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision on several grounds but during
the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the X-Ray
report of the victim was not exhibited during trial and concerned doctor was not
examined, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under section326 of
IPC against the petitioner. At the most, the petitioner can be convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 324 of IPC. The petitioner remained in custody during trial
and thereafter, after passing of impugned judgment by the appellate court, and in total,
he has already undergone jail custody of about 27 days and he is facing trial since 1999
for a period of about 26 years. The petitioner is having no criminal past, therefore,
learned counsel does not press this revision on merits and not assailed the finding part
of the impugned judgment. He confines his argument on the point of sentence only and
prays that since the petitioner remained in jail incarceration for 27 days; he is facing
trial since 1999 i.e. for a period of almost 26 years and he is not having any criminal
antecedents, therefore, present revision be disposed of and the jail sentence awarded to
the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State on the other hand supports the
impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of this revision.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10156
3 CRR-93-2007
So far as offence under section 326 of IPC is concerned, complainant
Chandraprakash (PW1) has categorically stated in his statement before the trial court
that the accused petitioner had caused injuries on his right wrist by means of axe and
his statement is supported by eye witness Govind Das (PW2) and Mankunwar (PW3).
However, another eye witness Lakhan (PW5) and Khushiram (PW6) both of them
turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.
Dr.N.R.Jatav (PW4) who conducted MLC of victim Chandraprakash has
deposed that on 07.03.2009 during examination of complainant Chandraprakash, he
found that victim sustained sharp cut injury size 5 X 1 CM X bone deep caused by
sharp edged weapon on the right wrist and the bone was protruding which is serious in
nature. His MLC report is Ex.P/3 and he advised X-Ray of the victim. Although the X-
Ray plate has been filed by the prosecution before the trial court, but neither
Radiologist nor the report given by the concerned doctor were examined before the trial
court. No X-Ray report was exhibited in any other manner. Therefore, in absence of X-
Ray report, the factum of fracture could not be proved. The prosecution did not give
any satisfactory explanation for not producing aforesaid material evidence. Therefore,
in absence of aforesaid material evidence, the prosecution has failed to prove that the
injured had sustained any bony or grievous injury. Hence, the prosecution has failed to
prove offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC against the petitioner. But in view
of the statement of complainant Chandraprakash (PW1) and statement of concerning
doctor N.R.Jatav (PW4) and his MLC report Ex.P/3, the FIR Ex.P/1 and Seizure memo
Ex.P/2, nothing is available on record to disbelieve cogent evidence produced by the
prosecution. Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid documents, the prosecution has
proved that at the time of incident, the petitioner caused injuries to the victim by means
of sharp cutting object i.e. axe. Therefore, offence under section 324 of IPC is found
proved against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt.
Since, the petitioner has not challenged the sentence recorded by the courts
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10156
4 CRR-93-2007
below, in these circumstances, sentence recorded against the petitioner by the trial court
is hereby affirmed. However, considering facts and circumstances of the case and the
fact that since the petitioner has already suffered jail incarceration of 27 days, he is
facing trial since 1999 i.e. for about 26 years and he is not having any criminal
antecedents, therefore, this Court finds it appropriate to partly allow this revision
petition by affirming the conviction of the petitioner under Section 324 of IPC,
however, reducing his jail sentence to the period already undergone by him.
Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed by modifying the conviction
of the petitioner from offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC to the offence
punishable under Section 324 of IPC, but reducing the jail sentence to the period
already undergone by him with fine as imposed by the trial court. The fine amount has
already been deposited by the petitioner. In case of default in payment of fine, the
petitioner shall have to undergo one month's RI. The petitioner is reported to be on bail.
Since the petitioner is already on bail, his bail bonds and surety bonds stand
discharged. Disposal of the property shall be conducted as per the order of the trial
Court.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court along with the records
for information and necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Rks
