Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balla @ Balram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 September, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23355
1 CRR-827-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 22nd OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 827 of 2014
BALLA @ BALRAM AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Satyendra Singh Rajput - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Puran Kumar Kulshreshtha - Additional Advocate General for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
With the consent of both the parties, matter is heard finally at the
motion hearing stage itself.
2. 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 9.10.2014 passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge,
Guna in Criminal Appeal No.305/2012, whereby the judgment dated
22.6.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guna in Criminal
Case No.1651/2009 has been affirmed, whereby petitioners have been
convicted for the offence under Sections 325 and 323 of IPC and sentenced
to suffer one year RI with fine of Rs.300/- and three months RI with fine of
Rs.200/-, with usual default stipulations.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23355
2 CRR-827-2014
3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 13.6.2009, in the evening
time, when complainant Balchand along with Kasturibai and Munnibai were
present in the function organized at Bhagwanlal's house, at that time
petitioners/accused persons had beaten them by means of wooden stick, due
to which Balchand, Kasturibai and Munnibai sustained certain injuries.
Incident was witnessed by Ravi and Bhagwanlal. Complainant Balchand
lodged an FIR at Police Station Kotwali, District Guna. MLC of the injured
persons has been conducted by Dr., Seetaram Raghuvanshi (PW-5) and as
per x-ray report, complainant Balchand sustained fracture on temporal region
of his head. Accordingly, offence has been registered.
4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed
before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guna who has framed the charges
under Sections 323 of IPC in alternative 323 r/w Section 34 of IPC and
Section 325 of IPC in alternative 325 r/w Section 34 of IPC against the
petitioners/accused. They have abjured their guilt and pleaded complete
innocence. The prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses while
defence has examined one witness.
5. The trial Court after considering the submissions advanced by both
the parties and scrutinizing entire evidence available on record, convicted
and sentenced both the petitioners for the offence under Sections 325 and
323 of IPC and sentenced one year RI with fine of Rs.300/- and three three
months RI with fine of Rs.200/-, with usual default stipulations.
6. Being aggrieved by the said conviction, the petitioners have
preferred a Criminal Appeal before the First Appellate Court but the same
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23355
3 CRR-827-2014
was dismissed by affirming the judgment and sentenced 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.
7. 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 16 years. Petitioner No.1 Balla @ Balram now turned 67 years of age.
Petitioners have no criminal past, therefore, their 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 petitioners 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
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.
11. So far as the quantum of jail sentence is concerned, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23355
4 CRR-827-2014
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be just
and proper. Petitioners have have suffered jail incarceration from 9.10.2014
to 17.10.2014 i.e. near about 09 days. At the time of incident petitioners No.2
to 4 were young man of 29, 20 and 26 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
(alok)
