[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sheru @ Kailash vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 March, 2026
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22369
1 CRR-496-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 17th OF MARCH, 2026
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 496 of 2012
SHERU @ KAILASH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri R.K. Raghuwanshi - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Rajeev Pandey - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Applicant No.1 Sheru @ Kailash and applicant No.2 Kishorilal @
Chandu are present in person and they are identified by his counsel.
This revision was admitted on 14.03.2012.
Record is received.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, matter is
finally heard.
2 . This revision has been filed by applicant being aggrieved of the
judgement dated 29.02.2012, passed in CRA No.227/2011 by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Sohagpur, District Hoshangabad.
3 .It is evident that vide judgment dated 21.07.2011 passed in Criminal
Case No.482/2005 (State of M.P., Police Station Pipariya, District
Hoshangabad Vs. Sheru @ Kailash and others), the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, District Shohagpur, District Hoshanbad, acquitted the
accused Mittulal and Ghanshayam from the charges under Sections
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22369
2 CRR-496-2012
452,294,332, 353/34, 325/34 IPC and also convicted the applicant/accused
No.1 Sheru @ Kailash and applicant No.2 Kishorilal @ Chandu from the
charges under Sections 294, 332, 353/34, 325/34 IPC . However, convicted
the applicant/accused No.1 Sheru @ Kailash and applicant No.2 Kishorilal
@ Chandu for the offence under Section 452 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3-3 yearsand also convicted for the
offence under Section and 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 1-1 year
rigorous imprisonment.
4 . On appeal, vide judgment dated 29.02.2012, passed in CRA
No.227/2011 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sohagpur, District
Hoshangabad dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Trial
Court.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that
Applicant/Accused No. 1, Sheru @ Kailash, has remained in custody for 73
days, and Applicant No. 2, Kishorilal @ Chandu, has remained in custody
for 62 days.
6 . Learned counsel for the applicant submits that although revision is
filed against the conviction and sentence, he is not pressing his revision
against the conviction, but the sentence may be reduced to the period of
custody already undergone by the applicant.
7 . Ms. Rajeev Pandey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State
has no objection if the conviction of the applicant is maintained and sentence
is reduced.
8 . Perused of the record of trial Court as well as appellate Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22369
3 CRR-496-2012
9 . It is seen from the certificate issued under Section 428 of the
Cr.P.C. that Applicant/Accused No. 1, Sheru @ Kailash, had actually
remained in custody for 23 days, and Applicant No. 2, Kishorilal @ Chandu,
had remained in custody for 12 days. After the judgment of the learned
Appellate Court, the accused persons were sent to jail, and their sentence
was suspended by this Court on 18.04.2012.
10. Considered the statements of PW/1- Gokal Prasad, PW/2-
Chandrawan Shrivastava, PW/3- Ramgopal, PW/4- Dr. A.K. Verma, PW/5
Bihari Lal, PW/6 Narvar Singh, PW/7- Bahadur Singh, PW/8- Pannalal,
PW/9- Ramkaran Sharma, PW/10- Kamal Singh and also considered,
statement of the accused persons recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
On the basis of the evidence available on record, it is seen that the judgment
of conviction is well justified. Therefore, the revision against conviction is
rejected.
11. In the considered view of this Court, having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case as narrated hereinabove, the sentence deserves to
be reduced. Accordingly, the revision against conviction under Sections 452
and 323 of the IPC is rejected, but the sentence is altered and modified to the
period already undergone by the applicants.
12. As a result, aforesaid both revision filed by the applicants are
partly allowed and disposed of.
13. Disposal of the case property would be as per the judgment of the
trial Court.
14. If the presence of the applicant is not required in any other case, he
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22369
4 CRR-496-2012
be discharged of his bail bond. Let the original record of the trial court be
sent back to the concerned court.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
NRJ
