Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 819 (MP)

Indrapal Singh v. State Of Madhya Pradesh

2020-08-20

V.P.S.CHAUHAN

body2020
JUDGMENT Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan, J. - Since aforesaid criminal revisions are arising out of the same judgment and order; therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Applicants Indrapal Singh and Musab Singh have filed aforesaid criminal revisions under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.03.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.517/2012 by learned V Additional Sessions Judge, District Chhatarpur; whereby affirming the order of conviction and sentence dated 30.11.2012 passed by learned JMFC, Rajnagar, District Chhatarpur in Criminal Case No.43/2010 convicted both the applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Sections 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for two months. 3. The case of the prosecution against both the applicants in short is that applicants along with other co-accused armed with a wooden stick formed an unlawful assembly for assaulting injured Chandra Pratap Singh (PW-1). On 10.09.2001 in the evening at 06:00 p.m. when applicants along with other members of unlawful assembly found Chandra Pratap Singh alone, they inflicted injuries on the person of injured. The injured received grievous injuries and fell down on the spot. Rampal and other witnesses rescued the victim. The victim immediately lodged the report at police station Khajuraho at 07:30 on the same day which was registered as Crime No.101/2001 against the applicants. The victim was sent for medical examination. The fracture in the right leg and hand was detected by the doctor. During investigation, wooden stick was seized from the possession of the applicants. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed in the Court of JMFC. 4. Learned Court of JMFC recorded the statements of 10 witnesses and on examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. the applicants denied all incriminating evidence and circumstances comes against them and pleaded a defence that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. The statements of defence witnesses Chutte Raja (DW-1) and Ram Singh (PW-2) were recorded. 4. Learned Court of JMFC recorded the statements of 10 witnesses and on examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. the applicants denied all incriminating evidence and circumstances comes against them and pleaded a defence that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. The statements of defence witnesses Chutte Raja (DW-1) and Ram Singh (PW-2) were recorded. Learned Court of JMFC after hearing both the parties delivered the judgment on 30.11.2012 convicting the applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 325 of the I.P.C. and sentenced both the applicants as aforementioned. 5. The applicants being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, preferred an appeal registered as Criminal Appeal No.517/2012 and learned appellate Court by judgment dated 29.03.2019 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by that affirmation of conviction and sentence by the appellate Court preferred this revision on the ground that prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses related to each other. Independent witnesses have not supported the incident. There was old enmity between the injured and the applicants on account of land dispute. Learned both Courts have not considered the aforesaid facts and not appreciated the evidence properly. Therefore, it has been prayed to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below and acquit the applicants of the aforementioned charges. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants, at the outset, submitted that he is not pressing the conviction passed against the applicants; however, he prays to reconsider the quantum of sentence of imprisonment passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court. 7. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State supported the judgment of both the Courts below and submitted that there are sufficient material available on record for convicting the applicants for the offence. Learned trial Court and the appellate Court properly sentenced the applicant; therefore, prayed to dismiss the revision. 8. Having heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the record of both the Courts below. When appellate Court affirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, that conviction and sentence attained finality as per Section 393 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is limited scope left with the revisional Court to appreciate the evidence as appreciated while exercising the appellate jurisdiction. When appellate Court affirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, that conviction and sentence attained finality as per Section 393 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is limited scope left with the revisional Court to appreciate the evidence as appreciated while exercising the appellate jurisdiction. Recently Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kishan Rao vs. Shankargouda, (2018) 8 SCC 165 , clearly discussed the ambit and scope of re-appreciation of evidence under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C. while exercising the criminal jurisdiction after affirming the conviction and sentence by the appellate Court. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that this Court, while deciding Criminal Revision No.151/2020 filed by co-accused Kallu Singh passed the order dated 12.02.2020, this Court reduced the sentence passed under Section 148 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced co-accused Kallu Singh for three months rigorous imprisonment. The act of co-accused Kallu Singh is the same; therefore, it has been prayed to reduce the sentence of the present applicants, as ordered in Criminal Revision No.151/2020 (Kallu Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh). 10. On perusal of the copy of the order dated 12.02.2020 which has been filed in these petitions and on perusal of the statements of witnesses recorded during trial, the act of the present applicants is more or less similar. They were the members of the unlawful assembly who assaulted injured Chandra Pratap Singh (PW-1) as result he sustained grievous injuries. 11. Considering the fact that act of the co-accused Kallu Singh is similar to the act of the present applicants, now this Court is inclined to reduce the quantum of sentence of imprisonment of the applicants passed under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and for the offence under Sections 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment. Consequently, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to three months rigorous imprisonment for each offence and each sentence shall run concurrently. The sentence of fine and default of payment of fine is affirmed. 12. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have already undergone the sentence more than three months. Consequently, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to three months rigorous imprisonment for each offence and each sentence shall run concurrently. The sentence of fine and default of payment of fine is affirmed. 12. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have already undergone the sentence more than three months. In these circumstances, learned trial Court is directed that if the applicants have already undergone the awarded sentence in this case; they be released forthwith after depositing the fine amount, if not required in any other case. 13. With the above modification, these revisions stand disposed of. Interlocutory applications if any pending stand dismissed. 14. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court and concerned jail for information and necessary compliance.