Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jangi @ Vijay Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 October, 2025
1
Cr.R.Nos.457/2006 & 339/2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
ON THE 10th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.457/2006
SHIV KUMAR
VS.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
&
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.339/2006
JANGI ALIAS VIJAY KUMAR
VS.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Petitioners by Shri Satyendra Prasad Dubey, Advocate.
Respondent/State by Shri Chandrashekhar Upadhyay, Panel Lawyer.
................................................................................................................................................
ORDER
These criminal revisions arise out of the same judgments of
the Courts below, therefore, they are heard and decided finally
analogously. The petitioner/Jangi alias Vijay Kumar is reportedly dead
and a death certificate has also been placed on record by his counsel and
as per telephonic conversation made by learned counsel for the State
with Station House Officer, Police Station Mangawan, District Rewa,
the factum of death has been confirmed.
2. These criminal revisions u/s 397/401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC") have been filed by the
Cr.R.Nos.457/2006 & 339/2006
petitioners/accused against the judgment dated 07.02.2006 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, in Criminal Appeal
No.364/2005 altering the judgment of conviction dated 21.11.2005
passed by the learned JMFC, Rewa, in RCT No.707/2004, thereby
modifying and convicting the petitioners/accused for commission of
offence under Section 325 (petitioner Jangi alias Vijay Kumar) &
325/34 (petitioner Shiv Kumar) of IPC and sentencing each of them to
suffer six months RI & fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations.
3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the first
informant Mukesh Kumar Gupta had made a complaint stating that on
20.11.2000 at about 9:00 a.m. the petitioners/accused and one another
co-accused had come to his restaurant and after having breakfast,
declined to make payment and when the money was demanded, they
assaulted the complainant by means of fists, lathi and chain. Then, an
FIR bearing Crime No.14/2001 for the offence punishable under Section
323/34 of IPC was lodged at Police Station Mangawan, District Rewa.
The injured was sent for medical examination.
3.1 After completion of investigation, a final report was filed
before the trial Court.
3.2 At trial, the petitioners/accused abjured their guilty and
pleaded false implication. After considering the evidence available on
record, the trial Court convicted the petitioners/accused under sections
325 and 325/34 of IPC and sentenced them to suffer RI for two years &
fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation. In appeal, the appellate Court
affirmed the judgment of conviction and reduced the period of sentence,
as mentioned above. Hence, these revisions.
Cr.R.Nos.457/2006 & 339/2006
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submitted that
there was no premeditation and the incident occurred all of a sudden and
the petitioners/accused are facing the criminal case since 2001. It is also
submitted that there are material discrepancies in the statements of the
prosecution witnesses. He also submitted that the petitioner Shiv Kumar
was not main assailant and he was made accused with the aid of Section
34 of IPC. On the basis of above premise, learned counsel prays that the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence may be set aside.
5. E-converso, learned counsel for the respondent/State has
supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
and submitted that the petitioners/accused have been rightly convicted
on the fulcrum of evidence adduced before the trial Court and thus the
revisions deserve dismissal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
7. Indeed, in order to bring home the charge, the prosecution
has examined as many as seven witnesses before the trial Court. First
informant Mukesh Kumar (PW1) in his deposition, has categorically
reiterated his version as narrated in the FIR. He also stated that he had
lodged the FIR (Ex.P/5).
8. Reiterating and corroborating the version of injured, other
independent witnesses have narrated in the same line. Dr. C.M. Mishra
(PW4), who had medically examined the injured Mukesh Kumar, has
corroborated the injuries sustained by the injured as per his version in
Ex.P/3. HC Ramkalyan (PW5) and Ajit Singh (PW7) have registered the
FIR and also conducted investigation into the matter about which they
have stated in their examination.
Cr.R.Nos.457/2006 & 339/2006
9. The learned trial Court as also the appellate Court have
meticulously discussed the prosecution evidence available on record.
The discrepancies appear in the statements of witnesses are minimal and
can be ignored. The statement of complainant Mukesh Kumar (PW1) is
fully corroborated by the statements of other witnesses. The contents of
the FIR (Ex.P/5) and the medical evidence are corroborative of the
statement of complainant Mukesh Kumar.
10. In Johar and Ors. v. Mangal Prasad & Anr., AIR 2008
SC 1165 it has been opined that if the order of the trial Court not found
to be passed without considering relevant evidence or passed by
considering irrelevant evidence, interference by entering into merits and
re-appreciating entire evidence would be improper. In State of
Maharashtra Vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand & Ors.,
AIR 2004 SC 4412 it is held that Court cannot exercise revisional
power as a second appellate power.
11. The finding of the Court below is based on the evidence
adduced on record which is not required to be re-appreciated in detail by
this Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Thus, the
judgment of conviction is hereby affirmed.
12. So far as the quantum of the sentence is concerned, the
petitioners/accused have been sentenced to suffer RI for six months and
fine of Rs.5,00/- with default stipulation. So far as deceased
petitioner/accused Jangi alias Vijay Kumar who has already died, is
concerned, no order of sentence is required to be passed. Considering the
fact that the petitioner/accused Shiv Kumar facing prosecution since 2001,
he was made accused with the aid of Section 34 of IPC and he had no
criminal antecedents, it would be appropriate to modify the sentence and
Cr.R.Nos.457/2006 & 339/2006
reduce the jail sentence to the period already undergone. Accordingly, the
jail sentence period is modified to the period already undergone and
instead of enhancing fine, it would be appropriate to award
compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., therefore, it is directed
that the petitioner/accused Shiv Kumar has to pay Rs.5,000/- as
compensation to the victim Mukesh Kumar. In default to suffer one
month simple imprisonment. The fine amount, if already deposited,
shall be adjusted against the compensation amount so awarded.
Petitioner/accused is directed to deposit the compensation amount
within a period of 15 days from the date of this order. Thereafter the trial
Court shall disburse the same to the victim - Mukesh Kumar.
13. Subject to above, since petitioner/accused Shiv Kumar is on
bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged. Record be sent back to the
Courts below along with a copy of this order.
14. Accordingly, this criminal revisions are disposed of.
(RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY)
JUDGE
sudesh
