Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 124 (MP)

Laxmi Prasad v. State of M. P.

2016-02-16

SUBHASH KAKADE

body2016
ORDER 1. This criminal revision under section 397/401 of CrPC has been filed by the petitioners against the Judgment dated 10.7.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No.273/2011 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh whereby the petitioners have been convicted under section 452 of the IPC and sentenced to R.I. for seven days and fine of Rs.500/- , arising out of judgment passed on 18.5.2011 in Criminal Case No.2811/2008 by learned JMFC, Tikamgarh. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on dated 16.5.2005, the complainant Rakesh Kumar (PW2) lodged a report to the effect that the petitioners at about 7 a.m. committed marpeet with him with the help of lathis. Complainant received injuries at his both hands and on back side. On hearing hue and cry of complainant, Smt. Lalla Bai (PW4), Rajkumar (PW5) came there, the petitioners also committed marpeet with them. At PS- Khargapur report was lodged and offence punishable under sections 294, 452,147,148, 323 and 506B/149 of IPC was registered against the petitioners. Charge sheet was filed in the Court of JMFC, Tikamgarh. The learned trial Court framed charges under sections 147, 294, 452, 323/149 and 325 and in the alternate section 325/149 of IPC against the petitioner. The petitioners denied the charges and pleaded false implication. 3. In order to bring home the charges against petitioners the prosecution examined Dr. R.S. Rana (PW1), Rakesh Yadav (PW2), Rajaram (PW3), Lallabai (PW4), Rajkumar (PW5), Bhaiyaram Yadav (PW6), Hariram Yadav (PW7), Sakhi (PW8), Vimla (PW9), Surendra Kumar Dwivedi (PW10) and D. R. Ahirwar and placed FIR on record and exhibited the documents vide P-1 to P-36. 4. Vide impugned judgment dated 10.7.2014, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh has convicted the petitioners under section 452 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for seven days and fine of Rs.500/-, aggrieved thereby this revision has been preferred by the petitioners. 5. The revision has been filed on the ground that the judgment and findings of learned Courts below are perverse and contrary both on facts and law and are liable to be set aside. Learned trial Court failed to appreciate the material available on record and passed the judgment and findings on conjunctures and surmises. There are lots of contradictions and omissions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 6. Learned trial Court failed to appreciate the material available on record and passed the judgment and findings on conjunctures and surmises. There are lots of contradictions and omissions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent/State submits that after due appreciation of prosecution evidence, the learned Court below has found the offence proved against the petitioners which requires no interference. 7. After perusing the impugned judgment and statements of prosecution witnesses as well as the record of the trial Court, I am of the view that no error has been committed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in recording the guilty of the petitioners and convicting and sentencing them for the offence punishable under the aforesaid section of the IPC. 8. Now the question arises that as to how a balance should be struck and maintained in regard to the sentence. 9. About 11 years have been elapsed from the date of incident and in between compromise also took place between the parties. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners have already suffered the jail sentence of seven days. Fine amount has arleady been deposited by the petitioners. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that in the instant case, learned appellate Court rightly sentenced the petitioner for the period already undergone by them as against the aforesaid awarded sentence by learned trial Court. 10. In the result the judgment of conviction recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in Criminal Appeal No.273/2011 dated 10.7.2014, requires no change, as well as awarded jail sentence also not requires any change. 11. The revision is disposed of accordingly.