Full Judgment
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Criminal Revision No.1432/2006 Milan s/o Sudarshan Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh For the applicant : Shri Harpreet Ruprah, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri Puneet Shroti, Panel Lawyer ORDER
(05.02.2013) U.C. Maheshwari J.The applicant/accused has preferred this revision being aggrieved by the judgment dated 8.7.2004 passed by Sessions Judge, Sagar in Criminal Appeal No.18/2004 affirming the judgment dated 13.2.2004 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deori in Criminal Case No.42/1994 whereby the applicant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 325 IPC for RI of 1 year with fine of Rs.1000/-; in default of payment of fine further RI of 3 months.
2. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that on 21.4.1994 at about 8.30 p.m. at Khanderao Ward, Deori on account of some quarrel regarding demand of money complainant Dashrath (PW-1) was abused by the applicant with filthy language and in continuation of such act also gave a blow from hard and blunt object which is used to prepare the food. Resultantly, victim Dashrath sustained injury on his hand with bleeding. The incident was 2 Cr.Revision No.1432/2006 witnessed by Ramesh Bose and Ramesh Mistri. The complainant went to the Police Station Deori and informed about the incident. After recording such report in the Rojnamcha Sanha he was sent to the hospital where on medical examination, his MLC report was prepared. He was sent for X-ray examination and on carrying out the same a fracture of his Ulna bone was revealed. After arresting the applicant and recording the interrogatory statement of the witnesses, on completion of the investigation he was charge-sheeted. On evaluation of charge-sheet the charge of Section 294 and 325 IPC was framed against the applicant, he abjured the guilt, on which trial was held and on appreciation of the same the accused was acquitted form the charge of Section 294 IPC while convicted under Section 325 IPC with the above mentioned punishment.
3. On filing the appeal by the applicant, on consideration by affirming the judgment of the Trial Court the same was dismissed. Hence, the applicant has come to this Court with this revision.
4. Shri Harpreet Ruprah, learned counsel for the applicant without challenging any finding of the learned Court below holding guilt to the applicant under Section 325 IPC has made his limited submission for reduction of the awarded Jail sentence by enhancing the amount of fine under the discretion of the Court. In such background he argued that impugned incident had taken place long before in the year 1994 and since then the applicant is facing mental agony of the case. During this period he has appeared on various dates 3 Cr.Revision No.1432/2006 before the Trial Court as well as in the Appellate Court so also before this Court and besides this he being the first offender did not possess any criminal antecedent. In addition to it, it was also pointed out by the counsel that out of the awarded Jail sentence he has suffered the same between 6.8.2006, the date of the impugned judgment to 4.9.2006 on which the remaining Jail sentence was suspended by this Court and prayed to allow this revision accordingly.
5. On the other hand, responding the aforesaid argument Shri Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer by justifying the impugned conviction and awarded sentence says that same being based on proper appreciation of the evidence, does not require any interference even for reduction of the Jail sentence as prayed by the applicant counsel and prayed for dismissal of this revision.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, keeping in view their argument I have carefully gone through the record of the Courts below. Although the case was not argued for extending the acquittal or to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to applicant but in order to do justice with him I have examined the matter to find out the possibility of the same. After perusing the record especially the deposition of the victim Dashrath (PW-1) and medical evidence led by the prosecution, I have not found any scope in the matter for extending acquittal to the applicant. So till the extent of holding the conviction against the applicant under Section 325 IPC the findings of the Courts below are hereby affirmed. 4 Cr.Revision No.1432/2006 7. On considering the scenario of the alleged incident and keeping in view the role which was played by the applicant in the same, I am not inclined to extend the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the applicant, hence such benefit is also refused.
8. Coming to considering the prayer of the applicant’s counsel for reduction of the awarded Jail sentence, I have found some substance in such prayer. It is apparent that the applicant has already suffered the mental agony of the present case for near about 18 years and also suffered near about 29 days Jail punishment out of the awarded Jail sentence, as stated above. I have also not found any record showing that the applicant has any criminal antecedent in his past. So in such circumstances I deem fit to reduce his awarded Jail sentence from 1 year RI to the aforesaid period of 29 days suffered by the applicant after passing the judgment of the Appellate Court, till passing the order by this Court for suspension of his remaining Jail sentence, as stated above, by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.1000/- to Rs.7,500/-, the same is ordered.
9. In view of the aforesaid, by affirming the impugned conviction of the appellant under Section 325 IPC this revision is allowed in part and the awarded jail sentence of the applicant under such Section is reduced from the period of 1 year to the period already undergone by him by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.1000/- to Rs.7500/-. The enhanced amount of fine is to be deposited withi”
5. Cr.Revision No.1432/2006 days from today, failing which the applicant has to suffer further 6 months RI.
10. It is further directed that on depositing the aforesaid enhanced sum of the fine, the entire enhanced sum of Rs.6500/- be given to victim Dashrath (PW-1) by calling him through summons in the Trial Court as compensation regarding his injuries. The bail bond of the applicant is hereby discharged. Till this extent, the impugned judgment is modified while the other findings of the same are hereby affirmed. (U. C. Maheshwari) Judge S/