Madhya Pradesh High Court
Naresh Singh @ Laturi Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 September, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22931
1 CRR-816-2014
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. 816 of 2014
NARESH SINGH @ LATURI SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Amit Kumar Goswami - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vikram Pippal - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
ORDER
The petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision under Section 397
read with 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') being
aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated
06.09.2013 passed by JMFC, Mehgaon, District Bhind in Criminal Case
No.231/2012, whereby petitioner has been convicted under Sections 452 and
323 (2 count) of IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months' RI with fine of
Rs.500/- and 3 months' RI with fine of Rs.500/- with usual default
stipulation. Against the judgment dated 06.09.2013, petitioner preferred
Cr.A. No.306/2013 before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind and
appeal was partly allowed vide judgment dated 30.09.2014 and petitioner has
been acquitted for offence under Sections 294 and 506 (Part-II) of IPC, but
his conviction for offence under Section 452 of IPC has been upheld.
2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 13.01.2012 at about 10:00 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22931
2 CRR-816-2014
when complainant Malti was at her shop, at that time, petitioner/accused
came there and abused in filthy language and told her that he will beat her
then he entered into the house of complainant Malti and beaten her by kicks
and fists. Ramkumar came there for intervention and he also sustained some
injuries. Complainant Malti lodged FIR at Police Station Umari District
Bhind. Accordingly, offence has been registered.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed
before the JMFC, Bhind. The Trial Court has framed charges under Sections
452, 294, 323 and 506 (Part-II) of IPC. Petitioner/accused abjured his guilt
and pleaded complete innocence. Prosecution has examined as many as 6
witnesses before the Trial Court, while defence has examined one witness.
4. After completion of trial and scrutinizing the evidence available on
record, petitioner has been acquitted for offence under Sections 294 and 506
(Part-II) of IPC, but he has been convicted for offence under Sections 452
and 323 (2 count) of IPC and sentenced six months RI with fine of Rs.500/-
and 3 months' RI with fine of Rs.500/- with usual default stipulation. Being
aggrieved thereby, accused preferred criminal appeal before the Additional
Sessions Judge, Bhind. During pendency of appeal, matter has been
amicably settled between both the parties and on the basis of compounding
the offence, petitioner/accused has been acquitted for offence under Section
323 of IPC but his conviction and sentence for offence under Section 452 of
IPC has been upheld. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioner preferred
this criminal revision.
5. The petitioner has preferred present Revision on several grounds,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22931
3 CRR-816-2014
but during the course of the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner does not want to press this Criminal Revision on merit
and is 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 petitioner be reduced to the period
already undergone by him, as the petitioner is facing trial for last 13 years
and he has suffered jail incarceration for more than one month and he has no
criminal past, therefore, his jail sentence be reduced to the period already
undergone.
6. 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 petitioner and the sentence in
question is sufficient.
7. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
8. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner, 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.
9. So far as the quantum of jail sentence is concerned, the submissions
made by learned counsel for the petitioner appear to be just and proper.
Petitioner has suffered jail incarceration from 06.09.2013 to 16.10.2013 (1
month, 10 days). At the time of incident, petitioner was a man of 37 years of
age and now turned 47 years of age. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it
would be appropriate to reduce the jail sentence to the period already
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22931
4 CRR-816-2014
undergone by the petitioner.
10. Considering the aforesaid, the revision is partly allowed by
maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, but reducing his jail sentence to
the period already undergone by him. The fine amount imposed upon the
petitioner is hereby affirmed.
11. Petitioner is on bail. His surety and bail bond stands discharged.
12. 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.
13. Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Abhi
