Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1061 (MP)

Shahzadi 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 applicant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.2.2017 passed by I 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 applicant has been convicted under sections 452 and 325 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.400/- for each offence and under section 323 of IPC, sentenced to undergo four months rigorous imprisonment. 2. As per prosecution case, on 12.5.2014 at about 8.30 pm, 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, other co-accused persons 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 applicant and other co-accused persons 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 applicant and other co-accused persons for the offences under sections 452, 504 and 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 applicant and sentenced him 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 applicant and sentenced him 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. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted IAs No.5783/2017 and 5784/2017 for recording acquittal of the applicant on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. 5. On perusal of the revision memo, it is gathered that despite confirmation of her conviction and sentence by the appellate Court, the applicant has not surrendered to custody and instead filed the present revision petition without incorporating a declaration to the effect that she is in custody or whether her sentence was suspended by the Court below or not at the time of her conviction. However, the fact remains that the present revision is filed by the applicant without her surrender before the Court below. 6. In the case of Deepak Sahu and others v. State of M.P., reported in [ 2012(II) MPWN 33 = 2012(3) MPLJ 534 ], this Court while hearing on the maintainability of the revision petition, has held that a criminal revision against conviction is tenable only when it contains a declaration to the effect that the convicted person is in custody or has surrendered after the conviction except in cases where the sentence has been suspended by the Court below. 7. In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court on the point of maintainability, present revision petition is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed. Consequently, IAs No. 5783/2017 and 5784/2017 stand dismissed.