Madhya Pradesh High Court
Barjor Singh Thakur vs State Of M.P. on 9 October, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25406
1 CRR-896-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 9 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 896 of 2011
BARJOR SINGH THAKUR
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Tomar and Shri Atul Sharma, Advocates for the petitioner.
Shri Anurag Sharma, Public Prosecutor for State.
ORDER
In compliance of arrest warrant issued against appellant Barjor Singh
Thakur, S/o Bheekam Singh Thakur, aged 65 years, R/o Village Miltoni, P.S.
Surwaya, District Shivpuri, he has been brought before this Court in Police
custody by Head Constable, Shri Harsh Jha, Thana Surwaya, District
Shivpuri.
Heard on I.A. No.21727/2025, which is an application under Section
397(1) of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail and suspension of remaining jail sentence
on behalf of petitioner.
Counsel for petitioner submits that he does not want to press this
application(I.A. No.21727/2025) and ready to argue the matter finally.
Accordingly, I.A. No.21727/2025 is dismissed as withdrawn.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25406
2 CRR-896-2011
1. With consent of both the parties, matter is heard finally.
2. The petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision under Section
397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short
'Cr.P.C.') being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19.09.2011
passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, District Shivpuri in Criminal
Appeal No.214/2011, by affirming the judgment dated 11.08.2011 passed by
JMFC, Shivpuri, in Criminal Case No.2495/2006, whereby petitioner has
been convicted under Section 332/34 of IPC and sentenced to six months RI
with fine of Rs.1000/- with usual default stipulation.
3. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that complainant
Kailash Chandra Morya Patwari lodged an FIR at Police Station Surwaya
District Shivpuri by stating that on 23.8.2006 at about 1:30 PM, when he was
discharging his official duty as Patwari and went to village Kanthi for
observing water level, at that time, co-accused Ballu asked him that he could
not get the compensation as he did not mention any report about his patore.
When complainant told him that he did not survey his house, then appellant
Ballu abused him in filthy language. Ballu and present appellant Barjor
Singh both have slapped him. Ram Singh and Chokhe Lal came there for
intervention. Thereafter, both the accused persons threatened him for life.
Accordingly, offence has been registered.
4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed
before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shivpuri. The Trial Court has framed
the charges under Sections 294, 332, 506 (Part-II)/34 of IPC against the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25406
3 CRR-896-2011
accused persons. Petitioner abjured his guilt and pleaded complete
innocence. Prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses before the Trial
Court, while defence did not examine any witness.
5. The Trial Court after considering the submissions advanced by both
the parties and scrutinizing entire evidence available on record, convicted the
petitioner as mentioned above. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and
sentence, the petitioner has preferred a Criminal Appeal before the Second
Additional Sessions Judge, District Shivpuri, but the appeal has been
dismissed by affirming the judgment of trial Court. Being aggrieved by the
said conviction and sentence, petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision.
6. The petitioner has preferred present Revision on several grounds,
but during the course of the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that he does not want to press this Criminal Revision on merit and is
not assailing the conviction and sentence part of the judgment. He has
confined his argument only to the extent of quantum of the sentence and his
sole prayer is that the imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to the period
already undergone by him, as the petitioner is facing trial since last 20 years
and he has suffered jail incarceration for the period from 5.4.2009 to
6.4.2009(2 days) and 19.9.2011 to 20.10.2011(about 1 month) and he has no
criminal past, therefore, their his sentence be reduced to the period already
undergone by him.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the
revision and prays for its rejection by submitting that the Court below has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25406
4 CRR-896-2011
rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner and the sentence in question is
sufficient.
8. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
9. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner, although the conviction has not been challenged, but bare perusal
of the evidence available on record also justifies the judgment of conviction
passed by the Court below.
10. So far as the quantum of jail sentence is concerned, the
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be just and
proper. Petitioner has suffered jail incarceration for more than one month.
Now, petitioner has turned about 65 years of age and he has no criminal
history. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to reduce
the jail sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
11. Considering the aforesaid, this criminal revision is partly allowed
by maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, but reducing his jail sentence
to the period already undergone by him. The fine amount imposed upon the
petitioner is hereby affirmed.
12. Petitioner is on bail. His surety and bail bonds stand discharged.
13. Pending IA are also disposed of.
14. Registry is directed to release the appellant forthwith, if he is not
confined in any other case.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25406
5 CRR-896-2011
15. Let record be sent back to the Courts below along with a copy of
this order for information and necessary compliance.
16. Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
"R"
