Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhamar Singh vs State Of M.P. on 14 October, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25849
1 CRR-447-2006
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. 447 of 2006
BHAMAR SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Shobhendra Kumar Tiwari and Shri Gagan Sharma, Advocates for the
petitioners
Shri Harshit Raghuvanshi, Panel Lawyer for State.
ORDER
All the petitioners appeared in person. They have been duly identified by
their counsel.
This Criminal appeal is pending since 2006. During pendency of the appeal,
co-accused Gajendra Singh has been died.
With the consent of both the parties, matter is heard finally.
2. 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 of conviction and sentence dated
19.5.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chachoda, District Guna in
Criminal Appeal No.55/2006, whereby the judgment dated 30.12.2005 passed by
the JMFC, Chachoda in Criminal Case No.769/1994 has been affirmed, whereby
petitioner Bhaya alilas Brijraj Singh has been convicted for the offence under
Section 324 and 325 of IPC and appellants Bhamar Singh and Sahib Singh have
been convicted for the offence under Sections 324 and 325/34 of IPC and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25849
2 CRR-447-2006
sentenced to suffer 1 year RI with fine of Rs.500/- each respectively with usual
default stipulations
3. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 12.11.1994 at about 7
AM when complainant Goverdhan Singh was ploughing his field and crop of
Soyabena was lying in the field, at that time, all the petitioners went to the field of
complainant. There was a dispute over the cattle trespass between them and
Bhamar Singh started abusing complainant and inflicted farsa to his forehead.
Sahab Singh also inflicted injury by luhangi from the back side of the head. Co-
accused Gajendra Singh inflicted injury by using stick. Bhaya Singh inflicted
injury on his mouth. When Sagar singh and Ramcharan came there for
intervention, petitioners/accused persons fled away from the spot. Complainant
lodged an FIR at P.S. Kumbhraj. Accordingly offence has been registered.
4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chachoda, District Guna. Trial Court has framed
the charges under Sections 341, 324, 323?34, 506-B of IPC. Petitioners abjured
their guilt and pleaded complete innocence. Prosecution has examined as many as
ten witnesses 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 and
sentenced all the petitioners as aforementioned. Being aggrieved by the said
conviction, the petitioners have preferred a Criminal Appeal before the Additional
Sessions Judge, Chachoda but the same was dismissed by affirming the judgment
of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said
conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below, petitioners have
preferred this Criminal Revision before this Court.
6. The petitioners have preferred present Revision on several grounds, but
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25849
3 CRR-447-2006
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 are 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 petitioners be reduced to the period already undergone by
them, as the petitioners are facing trial for last 31 years, they have suffered jail
incarceration from 19.5.2006 to 1.6.2006(13 days) and petitioners have no
criminal past, therefore, their jail sentence be reduced to the period already
undergone.
7. 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.
8. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
9. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners,
although the conviction has not been challenged, but a bare perusal of the evidence
available on record, also justifies the judgments of conviction passed by both the
Courts below.
10. 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.
Petitioners have no criminal past. They have suffered jail incarceration from
19.5.2006 to 1.6.2006(13 days). Petitioner No.1 has now turned about 84 years of
age, Petitioner No. 2 has now turned about 52 years and Petitioner No.3 has now
turned about 69 years 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:25849
4 CRR-447-2006
11. 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 upon the petitioners by
both the Courts below is hereby affirmed. Petitioners are on bail, their surety and
bail bonds stand discharged.
12. The order regarding disposal of the property as pronounced by the trial
Court is also affirmed.
13. Let a copy of this order alongwith record of both the Courts below be
sent back to the concerned Courts for information and necessary compliance.
14. Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
"R"
