Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gautam Singh vs State Of M.P. on 18 September, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22882
1 CRR-107-2006
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. 107 of 2006
GAUTAM SINGH
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri D.S.Tomar - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Anurag Sharma - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
ORDER
1. With consent of both the parties, matter is heard finally at motion
hearing stage itself.
2. The petitioner has 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 dated
12.01.2006 passed by I Sessions Judge, Mungawali District Guna, in
Criminal Appeal No.25/2005, whereby the judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 30.07.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Mungawali in Criminal Case No.275 of 2004 has been affirmed, wherein
petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 326 of IPC and
sentenced to suffer one year RI with fine of Rs.1000/- with usual default
stipulation.
4. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 19.09.1999 when complainant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22882
2 CRR-107-2006
Mulayam Singh was sitting on the platform of his house, at that time,
appellant/accused came there and asked why he entered his cattle in his field
for grazing and started abusing filthily. He also assaulted him by means of
farsa on his right leg near knee. Lakhan and Kaptan intervened and saved
him. Complainant Mulayam Singh lodged FIR at PS Mungawali Distt.
Ashoknagar. His MLC was conducted by Dr. Rajendra Arora and
Dr.R.K.Jain had conducted X-Ray, according to which, a fracture has been
found in his tibia and fibula bone. Accordingly, the offence has been
registered.
5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been
filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungawali who has framed the
charge under Section 326 of IPC. Petitioner/accused abjured his guilt and
pleaded complete innocence. Prosecution has examined as many as 9
witnesses before the Trial Court, while defence did not examine any witness.
6. The Trial Court after considering the submissions advanced by
both the parties and scrutinizing entire evidence available on record,
convicted the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. Being aggrieved by the
said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred a Criminal Appeal
before Sessions Court, but the appeal has been dismissed by upholding the
conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the
said conviction and sentence, petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision
before this Court.
7. The petitioner has preferred present Revision on several
grounds, but during the course of the argument, learned counsel for the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22882
3 CRR-107-2006
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 26 years and he has suffered jail incarceration from 05.10.1999
to 21.10.1999 (16 days), from 06.07.2005 to 08.07.2005 (two days) and from
12.01.2006 to 17.03.2006 (total 5 days) and he has no criminal past,
therefore, his jail sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.
8. 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.
9. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
10. 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.
11. 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 05.10.1999 to
21.10.1999 (16 days), from 06.07.2005 to 08.07.2005 (two days) and from
12.01.2006 to 17.03.2006 (total 5 days). At the time of incident petitioner
was a man of 34 years of age and now turned more than 60 years of age.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22882
4 CRR-107-2006
Therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to reduce the jail
sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
12. 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.
13. Petitioner is on bail. His surety and bail bond stands discharged.
14. 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.
15. Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Rks
