Madhya Pradesh High Court
Babbal @ Pradeep Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 September, 2025
1
Cr.R.No.342/2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
ON THE 19th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.342/2013
BABBAL ALIAS PRADEEP KUMAR & OTHERS
VS.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Petitioners by Shri Prahalad Choudhary - Senior Advocate with Shri
Vipin Kumar - Advocate.
Respondent/State by Shri Ravindra Shukla - Deputy Government
Advocate.
................................................................................................................................................
ORDER
The matter is listed today for appearance of the
petitioners/accused and petitioners No.1, 3 and 4 are present in Court,
identified by their counsel. The petitioner No.2 Deepak Kori is
reportedly died on 12.07.2019 as per the report dated 19.09.2025 sent by
Police Station Ranjhi, Jabalpur. With the consent of learned counsel for
the parties, the revision is heard finally.
2. This criminal revision u/s 397/401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioners/accused against the
judgment dated 18.02.2013 passed by learned XIX Additional Sessions
Judge, Jabalpur, in Criminal Appeal No.165/2012 altering the judgment
of conviction dated 22.05.2012 passed by the learned JMFC, Jabalpur,
in Criminal Case No.1984/2011, thereby modifying and convicting the
petitioners/accused for commission of offence under Section 323/34 of
IPC (three counts) and Section 324/34 of IPC (four counts) and
sentencing with three months RI & fine of Rs.200/- and one year RI &
fine of Rs.500/- respectively, with default stipulation.
3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the first
informant Smt. Sarla Vanshkar has made a verbal complaint stating that
when on the occasion of birthday of her son, her family members were
celebrating and dancing, the petitioners/accused came and started
hurling abuse to them and inflicted injuries to her family members.
Then, an FIR bearing Crime No.2/2005 for the offence punishable under
sections 452, 294, 323, 324, 326 read with 34 of IPC was lodged at
Police Station Ranjhi.
3.1 After completion of investigation, a final report was filed
before the trial Court.
3.2 At trial, the petitioners/accused abjured their guilty and
pleaded false implication. While considering the evidence available on
record, the trial Court convicted the petitioner/accused under sections
323/34 (three counts), 324/34 & 326/34 of IPC and sentenced them RI
for 3-3 months & fine of Rs.200/- for each injured, 289, RI for one &
fine of Rs.500/- and RI for three years & fine of Rs.1000/- respectively
with default stipulations. In appeal, the appellate Court altered the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as mentioned above.
Hence, this revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submitted that
he is pressing this revision only on the quantum of sentence.
5. E-converso, learned counsel for the respondent/State has
supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
and submitted that the petitioners/accused have been rightly convicted
on the fulcrum of evidence adduced before the trial Court and thus the
revision deserves dismissal.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
7. Indeed, in order to bring home the charge, the prosecution
has examined as many as nine witnesses before the trial Court. First
informant Sarla (PW1) in her deposition, has categorically reiterated her
version as in the FIR. She also stated that she had lodged the FIR
(Ex.P/1) at Ranjhi Police Station.
8. Reiterating and corroborating the version of first-informant,
victim, other prosecution witnesses have narrated in the same line. Dr.
Vinod Kumar (PW8), who had medically examined the injured persons
and has corroborated the injuries sustained by the victims as per his
version. Head Constable Laxmi Prasad (PW9) has registered FIR and
also conducted investigation into the matter about which he has stated in
his examination.
9. The learned trial Court as also the appellate Court have
meticulously discussed the prosecution evidence available on record.
The discrepancies appear in the statements of witnesses are minimal and
can be ignored. The statement of complainant Sarla (PW1) is fully
corroborated by the statements of other witnesses. The contents of the
FIR (Ex.P/1) and the medical evidence are corroborative of the
statement of complainant Sarla.
10. In Johar and Ors. v. Mangal Prasad & Anr., AIR 2008
SC 1165 it has been opined that if the order of the trial Court not found
to be passed without considering relevant evidence or passed by
considering irrelevant evidence, interference by entering into merits and
re-appreciating entire evidence would be improper. In State of
Maharashtra Vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand & Ors.,
AIR 2004 SC 4412 it is held that Court cannot exercise revisional
power as a second appellate power.
11. The finding of the Court below is based on the evidence
adduced on record which is not required to be re-appreciated in detail by
this Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction.
12. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the
prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt
against the petitioners/accused and therefore neither the trial Court
committed any error in convicting the petitioners/accused nor did the
appellate Court commit error in altering the same.
13. So far as the quantum of the sentence is concerned, the
petitioners/accused have been sentenced for under Section 323/34 of
IPC (three counts) and Section 324/34 of IPC (four counts) and
sentencing with three months RI & fine of Rs.200/- and one year RI &
fine of Rs.500/- respectively, with default stipulation. It appears from
the record as well as from the impugned judgment that there is no
criminal antecedents of the petitioners/accused. They are the first
offender. Petitioners/accused are facing criminal prosecution since
2005. Looking to the age of the petitioners/accused and being first
offender and the incident occurred all of a sudden, in a heat of passion,
in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it would meet
the ends of justice if the jail sentence is reduced to the jail sentence
already undergone.
14. The jail sentence period is modified to the period already
undergone i.e more than 88 days and instead of enhancing fine, it would
be appropriate to award compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C.,
therefore, it is directed that the petitioners/accused No.1, 3 and 4 have to
pay Rs.10,000/- each as compensation, which shall be equally payable
to injured persons. In default to suffer four months simple
imprisonment. The fine amount, if already deposited, shall be adjusted
against the compensation amount so awarded. Petitioners/accused No.1,
3 and 4 are directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period
of 15 days from the date of this order. Thereafter the trial Court shall
disburse the same to the injured persons equally. In case of failure to
deposit the compensation amount within 15 days, the trial court shall
take necessary steps to get the petitioners/accused served the default
sentence, as directed above.
15. Subject to above, since petitioners/accused No.1, 3 and 4
are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand discharged. Record be sent back
to the Courts below along with a copy of this order.
16. Accordingly, this criminal revision is disposed of.
(RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY)
JUDGE
sudesh
