Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1058 (MP)

Akbar Khan v. State of M. P.

2017-10-06

S.K.AWASTHI

body2017
ORDER 1. This revision petition under section 397 read with section 401 of CrPC has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.2.2017 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Criminal Appeal No.197/2015, whereby confirmed the judgment dated 25.6.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guna in Criminal Case No.1284/2014, by which the applicants have been convicted under sections 452 and 325/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.400/- for each offence and under section 323/34 of IPC, sentenced to undergo four months rigorous imprisonment. 2. As per prosecution case, on 12.5.2014 at about 8.30 p.m., complainant Kalekhan was sitting in his house after grazing cattle. At that time, accused Akbar along with his wife Shahzadi came there and asked that he will cultivate the land of forest, the complainant replied that it is none of his business and this is the matter between the accused and forest department. On this, both the accused hurled filthy language and on protest they caused beating to him by stick, due to which the blood oozed out. After that, accused Irshad and Dilshad also came there carrying lathis with them and started hurling filthy abuses to the complainant. Irshad caused lathi blow to the complainant on his right shoulder. When Shabina Bano, wife of complainant, came for rescue, she was beaten by accused Dilshad by lathi, due to which she sustained injuries over left pelvis and ankle of right leg. The matter was reported to the Police Station Bamori, District Guna, where the FIR bearing Crime No.62/2014 was registered against the applicants for the offences under sections 452, 323, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC. The accused persons were arrested and after completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed before the JMFC, Guna. 3. The JMFC Guna framed charges against the applicants for the offences under sections 452, 504, 323/34 (two counts), 325/34 and 506 Part-2 of IPC. The accused persons abjured their guilt and requested for conducting the trial. After trial, the trial Court convicted the applicants and sentenced them as stated herein above. Against the judgment of the trial Court, the appeal was preferred wherein the judgment of the trial Court was confirmed and appeal was dismissed. Hence, this revision petition. 4. The accused persons abjured their guilt and requested for conducting the trial. After trial, the trial Court convicted the applicants and sentenced them as stated herein above. Against the judgment of the trial Court, the appeal was preferred wherein the judgment of the trial Court was confirmed and appeal was dismissed. Hence, this revision petition. 4. During pendency of this revision, both the parties have filed IA No.5745/2017 and 5746/2017 for acquittal of the applicant on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. 5. The factum of compromise has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court on 28.8.2017, who has recorded statement of complainant Kalekhan and Sabina @ Sameem Bano as well as accused Akbar Khan, Irshad Khan and Dilshad Khan and has submitted a report that the parties have arrived at compromise voluntarily without any fear or force. The verification report further states that the offences under sections 325/34 and 323/34 of IPC are compoundable but the offence under section 452 of IPC is not compoundable, as per section 320 of CrPC. 6. Thus, IAs No.5745/2017 and 5746/2017 are allowed in part. The impugned judgment dated 22.2.2017 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Criminal Appeal No.197/2015 is set aside so far it relates to conviction of the applicants for the offence punishable under sections 325/34 and 323/34 of IPC and the applicants are acquitted from the aforesaid offences. 7. However, since the offence under section 452 of IPC is not compoundable and the applicants are convicted of the said offence, therefore, learned counsel for the applicants submits that he is not challenging the conviction for the offence under section 452 of IPC passed by the Courts below but he prays for sympathetic consideration on the point of sentence. 8. However, since the offence under section 452 of IPC is not compoundable and the applicants are convicted of the said offence, therefore, learned counsel for the applicants submits that he is not challenging the conviction for the offence under section 452 of IPC passed by the Courts below but he prays for sympathetic consideration on the point of sentence. 8. After considering the evidence available on record, the offence under section 452 of IPC is found proved beyond reasonable doubt but keeping in view the compromise arrived at between the parties, which is duly verified by the Office of this Court, the conviction against the applicants for the offence under section 452 IPC is maintained, however, the sentence awarded for the said offence is reduced to the sentence already undergone by the applicants and the fine amount is enhanced from Rs.400/- to Rs.1,500/- against each applicant, which shall be deposited within a period of one month from today, failing which they shall suffer one month simple imprisonment. 9. With the aforesaid modification in the judgment of appellate Court, the revision petition is allowed in part. 10. Copy of the order be sent to the Court concerned for information and compliance.