Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Devendra Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Devendra Kumar vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Apr 17, 2013
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1050089

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Devendra Kumar

Advocate Shri. Y.K.Gupta

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

.....of offenders act, then he may lose his job. under such circumstances, it is prayed that the fine imposed upon the applicant devendra may be removed. after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the victim preetam (pw-1) and the eyewitnesses namely prem (pw-3).bhajan lal (pw-4) and ajesh mishra (pw-5) are believable. their statements are duly corroborated by timely lodged the fir ex.p/1 and the medical report ex.p/3 proved by dr. h.s.rana (pw-9) therefore, it is proved beyond doubt that the applicants voluntarily caused hurt to the victim preetam. they abused him at public place with the obscene words. the trial court has rightly convicted the applicants for the offences punishable under sections 323 and 294 of ipc. so far as the sentence is concerned, the trial court has already taken a lenient view against the applicants and therefore prima facie, there is no need to make any interference in the view taken by the trial court. however, the applicant devendra is a contractual teacher and it is possible that if he has not been given the benefit of the probation of offenders act, then he may lose his job. under such circumstances, it would be proper to make such an arrangement in the sentence passed against the applicant devendra, whereas there is no necessity to change the sentence imposed upon the applicant surendra. on the basis of aforesaid discussion, the revision filed by the applicant surendra is hereby dismissed, whereas the revision filed by the applicant devendra kumar is hereby partly allowed. his conviction for the offence punishable under sections 323 and 294 of ipc is hereby maintained but instead of imposing the fine, he be released on probation after giving due admonition under section 3 of the probation of offenders act so that he may not lose his job. however, the fine imposed upon the applicant devendra shall be counted as compensation and.....

Full Judgment

Criminal Revision No.336/2013 17.04.2013 Shri Y.K.Gupta, counsel for the applicants.

Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

As prayed by learned counsel for the parties, heard them finally.

The applicants were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 294 and 323/34 of IPC vide judgment dated 4.5.2012 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.(Shri Deep Narayan Singh) Waraseoni, District Balaghat in Criminal Case No.30/11 with fine of `300/- and `500/- was imposed upon them respectively.

In criminal appeal no.142/12, the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Waraseoni, District Balaghat vide judgment dated 14.2.2013 dismissed the appeal in toto.

Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments the applicants have preferred the present revision.

The prosecution's case in short is that on 13.1.2011 at about 7:00 p.m.in the evening, the applicants held the victim Preetam (PW-1) at village Chichgaon (Tahslil Waraseoni District Balaghat) and thereafter, they abused him at public place with the obscene words and also assaulted him by the stick and fists.

The victim had lodged an FIR Ex.P/1 in writing to the S.H.O.Lalbarra and therefore, a case was registered.

The victim Preetam was sent for his medico legal examination to the Community Health Centre Lalbarra, where Dr.

H.S.Rana (PW-9) had examined the victim and gave his report Ex.P/3.

He found swelling on back of his head and also the pain on his right shoulder.

After due investigation, a charges sheet was filed before the trial Court.

The applicants abjured their guilt.

They took a plea that they were falsely implicated in the matter due to political rivalry.

However, no defence evidence was adduced.

The learned J.M.F.C.Waraseoni after considering the prosecution's evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned above, whereas the appeal filed by them was dismissed in toto.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicant Devendra is a contractual teacher and if he has not been given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, then he may lose his job.

Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the fine imposed upon the applicant Devendra may be removed.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the victim Preetam (PW-1) and the eyewitnesses namely Prem (PW-3).Bhajan Lal (PW-4) and Ajesh Mishra (PW-5) are believable.

Their statements are duly corroborated by timely lodged the FIR Ex.P/1 and the medical report Ex.P/3 proved by Dr.

H.S.Rana (PW-9) therefore, it is proved beyond doubt that the applicants voluntarily caused hurt to the victim Preetam.

They abused him at public place with the obscene words.

The trial Court has rightly convicted the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 294 of IPC.

So far as the sentence is concerned, the trial Court has already taken a lenient view against the applicants and therefore prima facie, there is no need to make any interference in the view taken by the trial Court.

However, the applicant Devendra is a contractual teacher and it is possible that if he has not been given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, then he may lose his job.

Under such circumstances, it would be proper to make such an arrangement in the sentence passed against the applicant Devendra, whereas there is no necessity to change the sentence imposed upon the applicant Surendra.

On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the revision filed by the applicant Surendra is hereby dismissed, whereas the revision filed by the applicant Devendra Kumar is hereby partly allowed.

His conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 294 of IPC is hereby maintained but instead of imposing the fine, he be released on probation after giving due admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act so that he may not lose his job.

However, the fine imposed upon the applicant Devendra shall be counted as compensation and that sum be given to the victim Preetam.

The trial Court shall provide a sum of `800/- to the victim Preetam out of sum deposited by the applicant Devendra.

Copy of this order be sent to the appellate Court as well as trial Court for information and compliance.

C.C.as per rules.

(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial