Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kailash vs State Of M.P. on 2 September, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20174
1 CRR-449-2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 2 nd OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 449 of 2009
KAILASH AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Chauhan, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Puran Kumar Kulshreshtha, Public Prosecutor for State.
ORDER
Heard on I.A. No.18950/2025, which is an application for condonation
of non appearance of appellant No.1 Kailash on earlier occasion.
Today appellant Kailash appeared in person and he has been duly
identified by his counsel.
Reasons for his earlier non appearance appears to be bona fide and is
supported by affidavit, therefore, I.A. No.18950/2025 is allowed and his
earlier non appearance is hereby condoned.
With consent of both the parties, matter is heard finally.
2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been
filed by petitioners being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated
18.06.2009 passed by Sessions Judge, Sheopur in Sessions Trial No.09 of
2009, whereby judgment of trial Court dated 10.2.2009 passed in Criminal
Case No.323/2004 has been upheld whereby petitioner Kailash has been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20174
2 CRR-449-2009
convicted under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months RI
with fine of Rs.200/- and Petitioner Ballu has been convicted under Section
325 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months RI with fine of Rs.200/- with
usual default stipulations.
3. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 27.8.2001 at
about 12:15 PM, when complainant Ramwati Bai was in her home situated at
Village Badoda, at that time, his brother in law Gheru and petitioner Kailash
came there and they removed electric wire. Thereafter, some quarrel took
place between them and petitioners inflicted injuries over head of
complainant by means of axe and also sustained injuries on his left hand.
When, Ramprasad came for intervention, then he was also beaten by Ballu
by wooden stick. Due to which, he sustained injuries over his left hand and
left leg. Accordingly, offence has been registered.
4. After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the
petitioners-accused before concerned Court who framed charges under
Sections 324, 325/34 against petitioner Kailash and framed charges under
Sections 324/34, 325 of IPC against the petitioner Ballu. Accused persons
abjured their guilt and pleaded complete innocence. Prosecution has
examined as many as six witnesses while defence did not examine any
witness.
5. The trial Court after scrutinizing evidence available on record and
considering the rival submissions made by both the parties, has convicted the
petitioners for the aforesaid offences which has been affirmed by the
Appellate Court. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioners have
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20174
3 CRR-449-2009
preferred this criminal revision before this Court.
6. Petitioners have preferred this criminal revision on several grounds
but during the course of argument, learned counsel for petitioners did not
press this revision on merit and not assailed the finding part of impugned
judgment. He confines his arguments on the point of sentence only and prays
that the petitioners have turned have about 43 and 42 years of age
respectively and remained in custody for about 9 days, having no criminal
antecedents, therefore, it is prayed that present revision be disposed of and
jail sentence awarded to the petitioners be reduced to the period already
undergone.
7. Learned counsel for respondent/State on the other hand supported
the impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of this revision.
8. Since petitioners have not challenged the conviction recorded by
Courts below, in these circumstances conviction recorded against petitioners
for the offence as stated herein above is hereby affirmed. However,
considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that since
petitioners have already suffered jail sentence for about 9 days, they are
facing trial since last 24 years, petitioners have now turned to be of 43 and
42 years old respectively and remained in custody from 18.6.2009 to
27.6.2009 (about 9 days), having no criminal antecedents, therefore, this
Court finds that it would be appropriate to partly allow the revision by
affirming the conviction, however, by reducing their jail sentence to the
period already undergone but by enhancing the fine amount for petitioner
Kailash for offence punishable under Section 324 and for petitioner Ballu
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20174
4 CRR-449-2009
under Section 325 of IPC from Rs.200/- to Rs.2000/- each.
9. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed by maintaining
the conviction, but reducing the jail sentence to the period already undergone
by petitioners however, by enhancing fine amount under Sections 324 and
325 of IPC respectively from Rs.200/- to Rs.2000/- each. The enhanced
amount be deposited before trial Court by petitioners within a period of one
month from today and in case of default of depositing the enhanced fine
amount, the trial Court shall proceed accordingly. Since the petitioners are
already on bail, their bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged. Disposal
of property shall be conducted as per the order of trial Court.
10. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court along with
the records for information and necessary compliance.
11. Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
R
