Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 919 (MP)

Prem Singh Lodhi v. State of M. P.

2022-07-11

RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY

body2022
ORDER 1. This revision has been filed against the judgment dated 3.3.2022 passed by Sessions Judge, Raisen, District Raisen (M.P.) in Cri. Appeal No.13/2021 whereby learned Sessions Judge affirmed the judgment of conviction dated 16.7.2021 passed by learned JMFC, Raisen, District Raisen in Criminal Case No.401/2017 whereby learned JMFC found applicant No.1 Prem Singh Lodhi, applicant No.2 Neeraj Lodhi and applicant No.3 Manish Lodhi guilty for the offence punishable under section 324/34 of IPC and sentenced applicant No.1 Prem Singh Lodhi, applicant No.3 Manish Lodhi to undergo R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.1000/- and applicant No.2 Neeraj Lodhi to undergo R.I. for six months with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 30.3.2017 in the night complainant / injured Virendra Singh was sitting at his barn located near Ram Janaki temple and was guarding the crop, at around 8:30 pm applicants Neeraj Lodhi, Prem Singh Lodhi and Manish Lodhi came there on a bike. Manish was driving the bike. He parked the bike at some distance and he stood there. Prem Singh armed with a rod and Neeraj armed with a sword came to Virendra Singh and they assaulted Virendra Singh with sword and rod due to which he sustained injuries on his neck, right shoulder and back. Thereafter they went back from the spot by the bike. On the report of complainant / injured Virendra Singh police registered Crime No. 295/2017 at police station Kotwali Raisen, Distt. Raisen for the offence punishable under section 323, 324, 34 of IPC and investigated the matter. During the investigation police got medical examination of injured Virendra Singh conducted and also recorded the case diary statements of inujred Virendra Singh, Sunil Meena, Bheem Singh, Sukhdev, Suresh and arrested the applicants and seized one iron rod from the possession of applicant No.2 Neeraj Lodhi and after investigation police filed charge-sheet only against the applicants No.1 & 2. On that charge sheet Criminal Case No.417/2017 has been registered. Learned trial Court framed-charge against the applicants No.1 &2 for the offence punishable under sections 294, 324/34, 506 part-II of the IPC and tried the case. Applicants abjured their guilt and took the defence that they are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the offence. On that charge sheet Criminal Case No.417/2017 has been registered. Learned trial Court framed-charge against the applicants No.1 &2 for the offence punishable under sections 294, 324/34, 506 part-II of the IPC and tried the case. Applicants abjured their guilt and took the defence that they are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the offence. During trial learned trial Court also took cognizance against the applicant No.3 Manish under section 319 of Cr.P.C. and also framed charge against him for the offences punishable under sections 294, 324/34, 506 part-II of the IPC and also tried him along with the applicants No.1 & 2. After the trial, learned JMFC acquitted the applicants from the charge framed under section 294 and 506 part-II of the IPC, but found the applicants guilty for the offence punishable under section 324/34 of the IPC and sentenced them as aforesaid. Being aggrieved from the judgment, applicants filed Criminal Appeal No.13/2021, which was also dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Raisen. Being aggrieved from that judgment, applicant filed this criminal revision. 3. Although, apart from the quantum of sentence, the applicants in this revision also challenged the legality of the conviction, but during the course of the arguments learned counsel for the applicants submitted that he did not want to press the revision on the finding of conviction. 4. Otherwise also from the evidence produced by the prosecution finding the conviction of trial Court as well as Appellate Court under section 324/34 of IPC appears to be correct. So finding the conviction of trial Court is confirmed. 5. On the point of sentence, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicant No.2 Neeraj is a young boy, at the time of the incident he was 19 years of age, appellant No.3 Manish is also a young boy and applicant No.1 Prem Singh is a teacher. It is further submitted that the applicants were on bail during trial and they never misused the liberty granted to them. The applicants have been in custody since 3.3.2022. Further, the applicants have no criminal past, nor were they involved in any unlawful activities subsequent to this incident. So they should be given a chance to improve and they should be released on Probation. 6. Learned counsel for the state opposed the prayer. 7. The applicants have been in custody since 3.3.2022. Further, the applicants have no criminal past, nor were they involved in any unlawful activities subsequent to this incident. So they should be given a chance to improve and they should be released on Probation. 6. Learned counsel for the state opposed the prayer. 7. Certainly, the pre and past incidents, conduct of the appellants, cannot be lost sight of and can be taken as mitigating circumstances. So looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicants are facing trial since 2017 and they are in jail from the date of judgment i.e. 03.03.2022 and considering the facts and circumstances, nature of the offence, the character of the accused-applicants and particularly, the time period which has lapsed since the date of incident, the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be granted in this case. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above and considering the scope of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, this Criminal Revision is, accordingly, partly allowed by upholding the conviction of the accused-applicants. However, they are granted the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958. They are released on probation on executing a bond of Rs.20,000/- each before the trial Court. They shall keep peace in the society and shall not commit any such offence in future. These bonds shall be for six months. Benefit of section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is also extended to the applicants. With the above modification in conviction and sentence, the revision is allowed in part. 9. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Court of JMFC, Raisen, District Raisen for information and necessary compliance.