Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lakhan Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50237
1 CRR-3203-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
ON THE 6 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3203 of 2025
LAKHAN PATEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Madan Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ramanuj Choubey- Panel Lawyer for the State.
ORDER
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the revision is
heard finally.
2. This Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of
Cr.P.C./Section 438 read with Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 has been
preferred against the judgment dated 06.05.2025 passed by the First
Additional Sessions Judge, Hata, District Damoh (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal
No.26/2022 arising out of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
09.05.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hata District Damoh
(M.P.) in RCT No.611/2017 whereby the petitioner/accused has been
convicted under Section 332 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six
months with fine of Rs.500/- and under Section 427 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for three months with fine of Rs.300/-, with default stipulations.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 23.05.2017 complainant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50237
2 CRR-3203-2025
Hamid Khan along with his assistant staff and officers went to Village
Hinauta with driver Mukesh Rawat of the department's authorized vehicle
i.e. Pickup 407 bearing registration No.MP34-G-0619 to remove 25 KVA
transformer on which five consumers had dues of Rs. 85.427/-. After
removing the said transformer, they kept it in the said pickup vehicle and
reached 3311 KV sub-Station Riana to work. At around 1:00 PM, the said
consumers re-connected to the 25 KVA transformer. Thereafter accused
persons namely Lakhan, Vijay and Dhani Patel entered into sub-station
Riana without permission and started abusing and quarrelling with the staff.
They also started throwing stones due to which the glass of the windows of
the sub-station broken and two CTPT kept in the sub-centre got damaged,
due to which loss of Rs.67,000/- has been caused to the Government. The
accused persons also stopped the said vehicle and obstructed government
work and threatened to kill them. It is also alleged that the petitioner/accused
and other co-accused persons voluntarily caused hurt to complainant Hamid
Khan, Ramadhar Patel and Mahendra Soni, who are public servants and
prevented them from discharging their public duty and also caused criminal
intimidation by threatening to kill the complainant.
4. Thereafter, an FIR bearing Crime No.160/2017 for the offence
punishable under Sections 294, 332, 323/34, 427 and 506 (Part-II) of IPC
was registered at Police Station Batiyagarh Distict Damoh. After completion
of investigation, a final report was filed before the trial Court.
5. At trial, the petitioner/accused abjured his guilt and pleaded false
implication. While considering the evidence available on record, the trial
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50237
3 CRR-3203-2025
Court convicted the petitioner/accused under Sections 332 and 427 of IPC
and sentenced as mentioned above. On preferring appeal against the same,
the learned appellate Court has affirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence,
this revision.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused submitted that there is no
legal evidence available on record against the petitioner- accused. It is further
submitted that there are several contradictions and omissions appeared in the
statements of the prosecution witnesses and they have also improved their
version while deposing before the trial Court. It is further submitted that the
report of the incident was lodged delayed by two days. The prosecution has
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the
petitioner/accused deserves to be acquitted. In alternate, learned counsel for
the petitioner/accused submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 17.6.2025 passed in Criminal Revision No.2209/2025 (Vijay
Patel and others Vs. State of MP) has allowed the revision and quashed the
substantial jail sentence with a direction that the petitioners/accused shall
deposit Rs.10,000/- each under Section 332 of IPC and Rs.35,000/- each
under Section 427 of IPC as a fine. Therefore, learned counsel for the
petitioner/accused prays for parity in sentencing the petitioner.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submitted that the judgments
of the learned Courts below are based on legal evidence adduced before the
trial Court. The minor discrepancies appeared in the statements of the
prosecution witnesses are not material. It is further submitted that the
evidence adduced against the petitioner/ accused is proved beyond
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50237
4 CRR-3203-2025
reasonable doubt. Further, looking to the nature of evidence, the
petitioner/accused has been rightly convicted on the fulcrum of evidence
adduced before the trial Court and thus the revision deserves to be dismissed.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. Indeed, in order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has
examined as many as eight witnesses before the trial Court. Complainant
Hamid Khan (PW-1), Ramadhar Patel (PW-2), Shubhash Shukla (PW-4) and
Mukesh Rawat (PW-5) have categorically stated that when they went to
Village Hinauta and took away the transformer, on that the
petitioner/accused and co-accused persons reached on the power station,
started abusing and trespassed into the power station and assaulted Hamid
Khan (PW-1) and Ramadhar Patel (PW-2) and damaged the power station by
pelting stones, in which two persons had sustained injuries and power station
was damaged.
10. 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.
11. 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50237
5 CRR-3203-2025
12. The finding of the trial Court 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.
13. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has
successfully proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the
petitioner/accused and therefore neither the trial Court committed any error
in convicting the petitioner/accused nor did the appellate Court commit error
in affirming the same.
14. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, learned counsel for
the petitioner/accused has claimed parity with the order dated 17.6.2025
passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision
No.2209/2025 (Vijay Patel and others Vs. State of MP), in which the
Coordinate Bench has quashed the substantial jail sentence of the co-accused
persons. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that
the petitioner/accused is the first offender and there is no criminal antecedent
of present petitioner/accused, therefore the ends of justice would meet if the
jail sentence of the petitioner/accused is reduced to the period already
undergone by him i.e. 28 days.
15. Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioner/accused under Sections
332 and 427 of IPC is hereby affirmed. The jail sentence of the
petitioner/accused is reduced to the period already undergone by him 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 has to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the Madhya
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50237
6 CRR-3203-2025
Pradesh Purva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company, Batiyagarh District Damoh.
In default to suffer six months' simple imprisonment. The petitioner/accused
is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of 15 days
from the date of this order and the learned trial Court shall disburse the same
to the Madhya Pradesh Purva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company, Batiyagarh
District Damoh. In case of failure to deposit the compensation amount within
15 days, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to get the
petitioner/accused served the default sentence, as directed above.
16. Subject to above, the petitioner/accused be released on bail.
17. Record be sent back to the courts below along with the copy of this
order.
18. Accordingly, this criminal revision stands disposed of.
(RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY)
JUDGE
Ansari
