Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 753 (MP)

Dayanand Pachouri v. State of M. P.

2018-08-31

SUSHIL KUMAR PALO

body2018
ORDER 1. The applicant has preferred this criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of CrPC to assail the judgment dated 13.9.2017 passed by Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in Criminal Appeal No. 167/2016 whereby the judgment dated 13.6.2016 passed by J.M.F.C., Hoshangabad in Criminal Case No. 1276/2013, convicting and sentencing the accused-applicant for the offence under section 323 of IPC till rising of the Court and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, has been affirmed. 2. There was a family dispute and because of which there was altercation between him and his mother Sakuntala Bai. A challan for the offence under sections 323, 294 and 506 of IPC was presented on the report of Sakuntala Bai but learned J.M.F.C. convicted the accused for the offence under section 323 of IPC and sentenced him till rising of the Court and imposed a fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, to undergo two months’ simple imprisonment. 3. The applicant has preferred a criminal appeal before the Sessions Court, Hoshangabad wherein the Sessions Judge has affirmed the conviction and sentence by the impugned judgment. Therefore, the present revision. 4. On behalf of the applicant, it is contended that the evidence of Sakuntala Pachouri (PW1) is highly suspicious and is not corroborated by the medical evidence. The Medical Officer (PW5) has mentioned that there is no visual injury on the body of complainant, despite that the applicant has been convicted by the Courts below which are liable to be set aside. 5. During the course of arguments, it is also argued the applicant has been convicted for the first time and for a petty offence. Learned trial Court and the appellate Court ought to have given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. It is also contended that the applicant and the complainant settled their dispute in the Lok Adalat on 8.4.2017 in the civil cases. It is also contended that applicant is the first offender and the applicant having regard to the circumstances is entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act,1958. In this regard, reliance has been placed in the case of Rajbir v. State of Haryana reported in 1985 Supp(1) SCC 272. 6. On behalf of the respondent-State, the revision is vehemently opposed. 7. In this regard, reliance has been placed in the case of Rajbir v. State of Haryana reported in 1985 Supp(1) SCC 272. 6. On behalf of the respondent-State, the revision is vehemently opposed. 7. Looking to the limited prayer made by the counsel for the applicant and the nature of offence and the fact that the applicant has already suffered the sentence till rising of the Court and deposited the fine amount, this Court is of the view that the findings of learned Courts below are hereby maintained with the modification that the applicant be given the benefit under section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, the nature of offence as also the fact that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. 8. The applicant shall appear before the J.M.F.C., Hoshangabad within a period of 30 days from today and shall be released on probation on execution of a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and surety to the like amount, to maintain good conduct for the period of one year, failing which the applicant will be called upon to hear on the point of sentence. 9. With these observations, this criminal revision is allowed in part.