Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1003 (MP)

CHARAN s/o MOTI v. STATE OF M. P.

2009-08-20

N.K.MODY

body2009
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard on IA. No. 10841/09 which is an application for suspension of sentence. Since the petition itself is disposed of finally, therefore, no separate order is necessary on the application. Application stands dismissed. Final arguments heard. Perused the record. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30-6-2009 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Betul in Cr. A. No. 87/09, whereby the judgment dated 30-5-2009 passed by JMFC, Betul in Criminal Case No. 139/04, whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under section 325 of Indian Penal Code by sentencing him to undergo one year RI and fine of Rs. 500/- was confirmed, present revision petition has been filed. 2. Case of the prosecution was that on 24-1-2004 at about 10:00 AM when the complainant Rampyari was at her home, at that time petitioner came there and abused her in filthy language and also beaten her by a wooden stick, with the result complainant sustained injuries. Upon the complaint case was registered against the petitioner. After framing of charges and also after recording of evidence the offence was found proved and petitioner was convicted as stated hereinabove. An appeal was preferred against that order which was dismissed, hence this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that petitioner has convicted illegally while petitioner has not committed any offence. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Courts below committed error in not properly appreciating the evidence which resulted incorrect judgment and is liable to be set aside in this revision. It is submitted that the learned Courts below committed error in not considering that material omissions and contradictions appearing in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. It is submitted that petitioner is in jail from the date of judgment i.e. 30-6-2009. Learned counsel submits that the conviction and sentence be set aside. 4. In alternative learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a poor person. It is submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the fact that petitioner has already served substantive part of jail sentence, the same may be reduced to the period already undergone and the amount of fine may reasonably be enhanced. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that after due appreciation of evidence both the Courts below have found the petitioner guilty for the aforesaid offence. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that after due appreciation of evidence both the Courts below have found the petitioner guilty for the aforesaid offence. It is submitted that revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited and no interference is called for in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. 6. From perusal of the record it is evident that both the Courts below concurrently found that the petitioner has committed offence for which the petitioner has been convicted. This Court is well aware about the limitation of this Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, which does not empower reappreciation of evidence. Hence so far as conviction is concerned the judgment passed by the learned Courts below is maintained. 7. So far as the period of sentence is concerned, looking to the limited prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and the nature of offence and the fact that petitioner has already served substantive period of jail sentence the purpose would be served in case the jail sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone, subject to depositing further fine of Rs. 200/-, for which counsel for the State also agrees, failing which the petitioner shall suffer jail sentence awarded by the learned Court below. 8. In the result the revision petition is partly allowed. The findings of conviction is hereby maintained with the modification to the extent that the jail sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone subject to depositing further compensation/fine of Rs. 200/-, failing which the petitioner shall suffer jail sentence awarded by the learned Court below. Upon depositing the aforesaid amount, petitioner be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 9. With the aforesaid modification, the revision petition stands disposed of. C. C. as per rules.