Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sitaram Ojha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 November, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56605
1 CRR-5248-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 11th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5248 of 2025
SITARAM OJHA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Rupesh Patel - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Vijay Pandey - Dy. Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Heard on admission.
Revision petition is admitted for final hearing.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that case can be
heard finally and, therefore, learned counsel for the applicant, prays for
withdrawal of I.A. No.23039/2025. Accordingly, I.A. No.23039/2025 is
dismissed as withdrawn.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard
finally.
2. Shri Vijay Pandey, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the
respondent/State, has no objection to the disposal of this revision as per law
based on the available record.
3 . This revision has been filed being aggrieved of the judgment dated
30.08.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Narshinghpur (M.P.) in Criminal Case No.3332/2012 [State of M.P. through
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56605
2 CRR-5248-2025
P.S. Narshinghpur] whereby applicant has been convicted for offence under
section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment 6
months with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation of payment of fine
amount to undergo additional R.I. for 01 month.
4. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the judgment of
the learned trial court passed in Criminal Case No.3332/2012 (State of M.P.
through P.S. Narshingpur Vs. Seetaram), vide judgement dated 30.08.2018,
wherein accused was charged under Section 324 of IPC for causing injury to
applicant Saraswati Bai on 03.11.2012 at about 08 PM. On the perusal of the
record it is seen that accused Seetaram is the husband of the injured
Saraswati Bai and they are having two children, one is son and second is
daughter. As per the judgment, after about three years, the accused started
living with another woman because of a dispute, and when Saraswati Bai
objected, the accused got engry and assaulted her by 'Jhara'; therefore, she
sustained injuries. A report was made, and a chargesheet was filed. The
accused denied the charges, and he was put on trial. After the prosecution's
evidence, the accused submitted that he was innocent but he did not produce
any defense evidence.
5 . In the trial court, PW/1 (complainant) was examined, and the
substance of his evidence is recorded by the learned trial court. Her son
PW/3 Shivam was also examined. PW/2 stated that she had not seen the
incident by which the accused had hit with an object. The learned trial court,
considering the evidence on record and looking to the evidence of PW/6-Dr.
Namrata Shukla and on the basis of the statement of PW/5- P.L. Patel (S.I.),
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56605
3 CRR-5248-2025
Police Officer, convicted the accused as mentioned above. Although at the
time of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant did not press his appeal
against the conviction in order to do justice to the party, it is seen that
conviction is well justified, therefore, the appeal against conviction is
rejected.
6. Now the second question is regarding the quantum of punishment.
The learned trial court has sentenced the applicant as mentioned above.
Section 324 of IPC prescribes that whoever commits an offense as
punishable under Section 324 of IPC can be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term that may extend upto three years, or with fine, or
with both.
7 . As it is submitted at the time of hearing by the learned applicant
counsel that his party was not in custody during the trial but he is in judicial
custody (in jail) from 26.09.2023, i.e., the date of judgment of appeal.
8. In the considered view of this court, the jail sentence has already
been undergone from 26.09.2025 till date, i.e., from the date of judgment of
the First Appellate Court. It is seen that the learned First Appellate Court did
not consider the criminal case 168/2025 on merit filed by the
applicant/accused but dismissed on the ground of delay, as the judgment of
the learned trial court was dated 30.08.2018, and the revision was filed in the
year 2025. Therefore, as mentioned above, the period already undergone by
the accused along with the fine is sufficient punishment in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
9. As a result, the appeal filed by the applicant is partly allowed and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56605
4 CRR-5248-2025
sentence is modified. Applicant in the facts and circumstances of the case as
mentioned above is convicted under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for six months with fine amount of Rs.500/-. It is treated
as already undergone by him. The order regarding fine amount and default
stipulation shall remain the same.
10. Disposal of the case property would be as per the judgment of the
trial Court.
11. If applicant is not required in any other case, he be released from
the jail immediately. Let original record of the trial Court be sent back to the
concerned Court.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
NRJ
