Full Judgment
CRR No.1613/2013 -1- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Hon’ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava CRIMINAL REVISION No.1613/2013 Applicants:
1. Ramnath s/o Kamta Prasad 2. Prahlad s/o Kamta Prasad Both R/o Barkoti Khurd, P.S. Gourjhamar, Tahsil Deori, District Sagar (M.P.) Versus Respondent : State of Madhya Pradesh through Police Station Gourjhamar, Tahsil Deori, District Sagar (M.P.) -------------------------------------------- Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the applicants. Dr. (Smt.) Anjali Gyanani, Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. -------------------------------------------- ORDER
(Passed on this 19th day of September, 2013) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 6.8.2013 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.158/2013 thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4.3.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Deori, District Sagar in Criminal Case No.977/2010 convicting the applicant No.1 Ramnath under Section 325 and 323/34 IPC and further convicting applicant No.2 Prahlad under Section 325/34 and 323 IPC and CRR No.1613/2013 -2- sentencing both of them to suffer RI of 1 year and fine of Rs.200/- and RI of 3 months respectively with default stipulations as mentioned in the impugned judgment, the applicants have preferred this revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that learned two Courts below contrary to the evidence, have convicted the applicants. An alternative submission has been made that since the date of judgment passed by learned Appellate Court, which is 6.8.2013 the applicants are in Jail, therefore, they be released for the period they had already undergone.
3. So far as the conviction of applicant No.2 Prahlad under Section 325/34 IPC is concerned, according to me, he has caused one simple injury to injured Umabai (PW-2) for which he has been convicted under Section 323 IPC. There is absolutely no evidence that this applicant caused injury by lathi sharing common intention with first applicant Ramnath. Thus, I am of the view that conviction of applicant No.2 Prahlad under Section 325/34 IPC cannot be sustained. He is acquitted from the said charge, however, his conviction under Section 323 IPC is hereby affirmed.
4. So far as the conviction of first applicant Ramnath is concerned, there is definite evidence of injured Umabai (PW-2) that this applicant dealt lathi blow upon his shoulder and hand, as a result of which she sustained fracture. The Radiologist CRR No.1613/2013 -3- doctor PW-5, Dr. Jinesh Divakar found fracture on the right ulna bone of the injured and also on her third metacarpal bone of right hand and thus, offence under Section 325 IPC stands proved against the first applicant Ramnath. However, there is absolutely no evidence of injured Umabai (PW-2) that in order to share the common intention with co-accused Prahlad he dealt blow upon the injured. Thus, I am of the view that conviction of applicant No.1 Ramnath under Section 323/34 IPC cannot be sustained. He is acquitted from the said charge, however, his conviction under Section 325 IPC is hereby affirmed.
5. It has been then put forth by learned counsel for the applicants that after the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court the applicants were taken into custody on 6.8.2013 and since then they are in Jail and have already suffered Jail sentence of more than one month. Hence, learned counsel submits that some leniency may be adopted in passing the sentence and they be released for the period they had already undergone.
6. Looking to the facts and circumstances and by paying heed that the applicants have already suffered Jail sentence of more than one month, they are sentenced for the period they had already undergone. However, so far as applicant No.1 is concerned, the amount of fine is enhanced from Rs.200/- to Rs.20,000/-. Let the balance amount of Rs.19,800/- be deposited by the first applicant Ramnath on or before 31.10.2013. However, it CRR No.1613/2013 -4- is made clear that unless and until the entire balance amount of Rs.19,800/- is deposited by the first applicant he shall not be released from the Jail. On deposition of the entire amount of fine he may be released from Jail, if he is not required in any other case. Let the entire amount of fine Rs.20,000/- which shall be deposited by the first applicant in the Trial Court be paid to injured- complainant Umabai w/o Bahadur, R/o Barkothi, Police Station Gaurjhamar, District Sagar, who was examined in the Trial Court as PW-2 towards compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Court is hereby directed to disburse the said amount to the complainant.
7. The amount of compensation may be deposited in the entirety or in installment. It is further made clear that in case the first applicant fails to deposit the compensation amount, he shall undergo the jail sentence of six months R.I. The applicant No.2 is in Jail. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. The Registrar (J) is directed to send the record to learned Trial Court posthaste so as to reach to that Court much earlier to 31.10.2013.
8. Resultantly, with the aforesaid observation and by interfering in the quantum of sentence, this revision application succeeds and is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. (A.K. SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE199.2013 S/