Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dharm Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 September, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22912
1 CRR-783-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 18 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 783 of 2014
DHARM SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Himanshu Chaturvedi - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Vikram Pippal - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Petitioners Dharm Singh, Tahdildar Singh, Sarman Singh and Dhara Singh
appeared in person along with their counsel. They have been duly identified by
their counsel.
2. Heard on I.A.No.9983/2019 which is an application for condonation of
non-appearance of the petitioners on earlier occasion.
3. Reasons for earlier non-appearance of the petitioners appears to be
bonafide and supported by affidavit, therefore, I.A. is allowed and their earlier
non-appearance is hereby condoned.
4. With the consent of both the parties, matter is heard finally at the motion
hearing stage itself.
5. The petitioners have 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 of conviction and sentence dated
17.9.2014 passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Criminal
Appeal No.238/2013, whereby the judgment dated 17.7.2013 passed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22912
2 CRR-783-2014
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehagaon in Criminal Case No.424/2008 has been
affirmed, whereby petitioner No.1 Dharmsingh has been convicted for the offence
under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to suffer one year RI with fine of Rs.500/-
, with usual default stipulation and petitioners No.2 Tehsildar Singh, No.3 Sarman
Singh and No.4 Dharasingh have been convicted for the offence under Section 323
of IPC and sentenced to suffer six months RI with fine of Rs.300/-, with default
stipulations.
6. The prosecution story in brief is that on 7.3.2008 at about 7:00 AM when
petitioner/accused Dharmsingh was cutting Babool tree, at that time Monu who is
grandson of complainant Nahar Singh intercepted him, then all the accused
persons came there armed with sticks, Farsa and they have committed marpeet
with Nahar Singh. When his son Virendra and daughter-in-law Guddi Devi came
for intervention, they were also beaten by accused persons. Incident was witnessed
by Rajveer and Sugreev. Complainant Nahar Singh lodged an FIR at Police
Station Gormi, District Bhind. Accordingly, offence has been registered.
7. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehagaon, District Bhind. The Trial Court has
framed the charges under Sections 324 and 323 of IPC. Accused persons abjured
their guilt and pleaded complete innocence. Prosecution has examined as many as
nine witnesses while defence has examined three witnesses.
8. The trial Court after considering the submissions advanced by both the
parties and scrutinizing entire evidence available on record, convicted and
sentenced the petitioner/accused Dharm Singh for the offence under Section 324
of IPC and sentenced one year RI with fine of Rs.500/-, with usual default
stipulation and other petitioners/accused have been convicted for the offence under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22912
3 CRR-783-2014
Section 323 of IPC and sentenced six months RI with fine of Rs.300/-, with usual
default stipulation.
9. Being aggrieved by the said conviction, the petitioners have preferred a
Criminal Appeal before Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind but the same
was dismissed by affirming the judgment and sentence by the trial Court. Being
aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below,
petitioners have preferred this Criminal Revision before this Court.
10. The petitioners have preferred present Revision on several grounds, but
during the course of the argument, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners 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 petitioners be reduced to the period already undergone by
them, as the petitioners are facing trial for last 17 years. Petitioners have no
criminal past, therefore, their jail sentence be reduced to the period already
undergone.
1 1 . 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 petitioners and the sentence in question is
sufficient.
12. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
13. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners,
although the conviction has not been challenged, but a bare perusal of the
evidence available on record, also justifies the judgment of conviction passed by
both the Courts below.
14. So far as the quantum of jail sentence is concerned, the submissions
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:22912
4 CRR-783-2014
made by learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be just and proper.
Petitioners have suffered jail incarceration from 17.9.2014 to 16.10.2014 i.e.
about one month. Petitioner No.2 Tehsildar Singh now turned 51 years of age and
petitioner No.3 Sarman Singh now turned 66 years of age. Therefore, in the
interest of justice, it would be appropriate to reduce the jail sentence to the period
already undergone by the petitioners.
15. Considering the aforesaid, the revision is partly allowed by maintaining
the conviction of the petitioners, but reducing their jail sentence to the period
already undergone by them. The fine amount imposed upon the petitioners by
both the Courts below is hereby affirmed. Petitioners are on bail, their surety and
bail bonds stand discharged.
16. 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.
17. Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
(alok)
