Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.Criminal Revision No.1820/1999 Laxmikant VERSUS The State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Ramesh Tamrakar, counsel for the applicant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER
(Passed on the 26th day of March, 2013) The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC vide judgment dated 16.10.1999 passed by the learned JMFC, Sagar (Shri Ajay Kumar Singh) in Criminal Case No.740/1998 and sentenced with 6 months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/-. In Criminal Appeal No.154/1999 the learned Sessions Judge, Sagar vide judgment dated 7.12.1999 dismissed the appeal in toto. Being aggrieved with the judgments passed by both the Courts below the applicant has preferred the present revision.
2. The prosecution’s case in short, is that, on 14.6.1992, at about 6 a.m, the complainant Parwati (P.W.1) was at her house situated at village Siddhgua (Police Station - 2 - Criminal Revision No.1820 of 1999 Behariya, District Sagar). The applicant came to her house and abused her and pressed her to lodge an FIR against one Sher Singh, who was held by the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant assaulted the victim by a stick, causing her various injuries. The complainant went to the Police Station Behariya and lodged an FIR, Ex.P/1, which was written in the Rojnamachasana. The complainant was sent to the Government Hospital, Sagar for her medico legal examination and treatment. Dr. G.S.Choubey (P.W.6) examined the complainant and gave his report, Ex.P/5. He found two injuries to the victim caused by hard and blunt object. Out of which, one was found on right rib and other one was found on left forearm. In x-ray examination, it was found that the complainant sustained a fracture of 5th Metacarpal bone in her right hand. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the trial Court.
3. The applicant abjured his guilt. He took a specific plea that he was falsely implicated in the matter to get some amount from him. However, no defence evidence was adduced.
4. The learned JMFC, Sagar after considering the prosecution’s evidence, convicted and sentenced as mentioned above, whereas the appeal filed by the applicant was dismissed. - 3 - Criminal Revision No.1820 o”
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Though eye witnesses Nizam Singh (P.W.2), Kusum (P.W.3), Harish Kumar (P.W.4) and Ramji (P.W.5) have turned hostile. However, the testimony of the complainant Parwati (P.W.1) is duly proved by timely lodged FIR and the medical report, Ex.P/5 proved by Dr.G.S.Choubey (P.W.6) and x-ray report, Ex.P/6 proved by Dr.V.K.Mishra (P.W.9) and therefore, it is proved that the applicant caused grievous hurt to the complainant. The applicant could not prove that he got any sudden or grave provocation or any right of private defence was accrued to him. On the contrary, he went to the house of the complainant and assaulted her. Under such circumstances, it is rightly held that the applicant voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the victim and therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under section 325 of the IPC.
7. So far as the sentence is concerned, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant appears to be acceptable that the applicant was the first offender. A fracture was caused to the victim but, it was caused to a very minot bone. The applicant suffered the trial, appeal and the present revision since last 14 years. Under such circumstances, where he remained in the custody for 10 - 4 - Criminal Revision No.1820 of 1999 days, he may not be sent to the jail again. However, some fine amount may be enhanced.
8. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the present revision filed by the applicant is hereby partly allowed. The conviction directed against him for the offence punishable under section 325 of IPC is hereby maintained but, his sentence is reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody. However, fine is enhanced from a sum of Rs.100/- to a sum of Rs.4,000/-. The applicant is directed to deposit the remaining fine amount before the trial Court within a period of 2 months, failing which he shall undergo for 6 months' rigorous imprisonment.
9. At present, the applicant is on bail. His presence is no more required before this Court and therefore, it is directed that his bail bonds shall stand discharged.
10. A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court as well as to the appellate Court along with their records for information and compliance. (N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE 26 3/2013 Pushpendra