Madhya Pradesh High Court
Harlal vs State Of M.P. on 18 September, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22888
1 CRR-124-2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 18th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 124 of 2006
HARLAL AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Abhishek Tiwari, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Mohit Shivhare, Public Prosecutor for State.
ORDER
With the consent of parties, matter is heard finally.
1. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been
filed by petitioners being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated
24.01.2006 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Gohad, District Bhind
in Cr.Appeal No.126 of 2005, whereby affirming the judgment and order of
conviction dated 4.4.2005 passed by JMFC, Gohad, District Bhind in
Criminal Case No.124 of 2002, convicting the petitioner under Section 452,
147, 323 and 435 of IPC sentenced them to undergo one year RI with fine of
Rs.200/- each, three months RI with fine of Rs.100/- each, fine of Rs.200/-
each and one year RI with fine of Rs.200/- each respectively with usual
default stipulation.
2. Prosecution story in brief is that, on 24.3.2002 at about 10 AM
when complainant Ramprakash was at his home, at that time, all the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22888
2 CRR-124-2006
petitioners/accused persons entered into his house by stating that why he has
made Khaliyan on their land. Thereafter, all the accused persons abused him
in filthy language and Harlal set ablaze the crop which was lying at Khaliyan.
When complainant tried to control fire, then accused persons entered in his
house and committed marpeet with complainant Ramprakash, Atal Bihari
and Ravi. Complainant lodged an FIR at P.S. Endori, District Bhind.
Accordingly, the offence has been registered.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before
JMFC, Gohad, District Bhind who framed charges under Sections 435, 294,
147, 452, 323, 506 Part II of IPC, who abjured their guilt and pleaded
complete innocence. Prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses
while defence examine any witness.
4. The trial Court after completion of trial and scrutinizing evidence
available on record and considering the rival submissions made by both the
parties, acquitted other co-accused persons but convicted the petitioners as
aforementioned. The petitioners filed an appeal before the First Appellate
Court which was dismissed affirming the judgment of trial court as stated
herein above. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, this criminal revision has
been preferred before this Court.
5. 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 been facing trial since last 23 years and already
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22888
3 CRR-124-2006
suffered jail incarceration from 11.4.2002 to 15.4.2002 and 24.1.2006 to
22.3.2006 (about 2 months and 1 day), 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.
6. Learned counsel for respondent/State on the other hand supported
the impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of this revision.
7. 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 already suffered jail incarceration for more than two months, they
are facing trial since last 23 years, 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 with the fine as awarded by the trial court.
8. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed by maintaining
the conviction, but reducing the jail sentence to the period already undergone
by petitioners with fine as imposed by the trial Court. The petitioners shall
deposit the fine amount as imposed by the trial court, if not already deposited
and in case of default of depositing the 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.
9. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court along with
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22888
4 CRR-124-2006
the records for information and necessary compliance.
10. Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
R
