Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kedari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 October, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26067
1 CRR-260-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 14 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 260 of 2015
KEDARI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri R.K.S.Kushwah - Advocate for petitioners from Legal Aid.
Shri Harshit Raghuvanshi - PP for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Today nobody has appeared on behalf of the petitioners. This criminal
revision is pending since 2015, therefore, in the interest of justice, Shri RKS
Kushwah Advocate, who is present in the Court and his name is in the panel of
Legal Aid Committee, Gwalior, is appointed as counsel for the petitioners.
2. With consent of both the parties, matter is heard finally at motion hearing
stage itself.
3. The petitioners have 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 28.02.2015 passed by III
Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Criminal Appeal No.294/2011, whereby
the judgment of conviction and sentenced dated 04.11.2021 passed by Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Pohri District Shivpuri in Criminal Case No.472/2007 has
been affirmed, whereby, the petitioners have been convicted for the offence under
Section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer 1-1 year's RI with fine of Rs.1,000-
1000/- with usual default stipulation.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26067
2 CRR-260-2015
4. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 24.09.2007 at about 7 PM, when
complainant Mayaram was returning to home and reached near Sehrana village,
petitioners and other accused persons intercepted him and started abusing filthily.
When complainant restrained them, petitioner Jasso assaulted him with lathi due to
which, he sustained injury on his shoulder. Kedari assaulted complainant by
means of Gadasi on his head due to which, complainant fell down on the field
then, he was beaten by the accused persons. The incident was witnessed by
Pancham and Jagdish. Both the accused threatened them for life. Complainant
Mayaram lodged FIR at PS Bairad Distt. Shivpuri. Accordingly, the offence has
been registered.
5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the
Trial Court, who has framed the charges under Sections 323 and 325 of IPC
agaisnt the accused persons. Petitioners/accused abjured their guilt and pleaded
complete innocence. Prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses before the
Trial Court, while defence did not examine any witness.
6. The Trial Court after considering the submissions advanced by both the
parties and scrutinizing entire evidence available on record, convicted the
petitioners for the aforesaid offence. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and
sentence, the petitioners have preferred a Criminal Appeal before the Third
Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri, but the appeal has been dismissed by
upholding the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved
by the said conviction and sentence, petitioners have preferred this Criminal
Revision before this Court.
7. The petitioners have preferred present Revision on several grounds, but
during the course of the argument, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners do not want to press this Criminal Revision on merit and is not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26067
3 CRR-260-2015
assailing the conviction and sentence part of the judgment. He has confined his
argument only to the extent of quantum of the sentence and their sole prayer is that
the imprisonment of the petitioners be reduced to the period already undergone by
them, as the petitioners are facing trial for last 18 years and they have suffered jail
incarceration from 28.02.2025 to 24.03.2015 (24 days) and they have no criminal
past, therefore, his jail sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the revision
and prays for its rejection by submitting that both the Courts below have rightly
convicted and sentenced the petitioners and the sentence in question is sufficient.
9. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
10. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners,
although the conviction has not been challenged, but bare perusal of the evidence
available on record also justifies the judgments of conviction passed by both the
Courts below.
11. So far as the quantum of jail sentence is concerned, the submissions
made by learned counsel for the petitioners appear to be just and proper. The
petitioners are facing trial since about 18 years and not having any criminal
background. During pendency of the appeal, the matter has been amicably settled
between both the parties and they have filed joint compromise petition before the
appellate court but the same has been dismissed without assigning any valid
reason. They have already suffered jail incarceration for 24 days. At the time of
incident petitioners were about 34 and 26 years age and now turned more than 62
and 44 years respectively of age. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be
appropriate to reduce the jail sentence to the period already undergone by the
petitioners.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26067
4 CRR-260-2015
12. Considering the aforesaid, the revision is partly allowed by maintaining
the conviction of the petitioners, but reducing their jail sentence to the period
already undergone by them. The fine amount imposed by the Trial Court upon the
petitioners is hereby affirmed.
13. Petitioners are on bail. Their surety and bail bonds stand discharged.
14. A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Legal Aid Committee,
Gwalior to pass formal order regarding appointment and payment of counsel fee to
the concerned Advocate through Legal Aid in accordance with rules.
15. Let the record of the Courts below be returned along with copy of this
order for information and necessary compliance.
16. Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Rks
