Full Judgment
Cr.R.No.379/2012 3.2.2014 Shri P.S.Tomar, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on admission.
The applicant has preferred the present revision against the order dated 19.12.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sagar in Criminal Appeal No.338/2011 whereby the conviction of the applicant for offence punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C is maintained but, sentence is reduced to a sentence of fine of Rs.600/- only.
The prosecution's case in short is that the applicant assaulted the victim Imrat Singh on 30.1.2008 at Civil Line, Sagar.
The victim lodged an FIR Ex.P/1 on the same day.
He was referred for his medico legal examination.
Dr.A.K.
Kastwar (PW4) had examined the victim and gave his report Ex.P/2.
He found an abrasion on his right ankle joint.
After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the trial Court.
The applicant abjured his guilt.
No defence evidence was adduced.
The trial Court after considering the prosecution's evidence convicted the applicant for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 of I.P.C and sentenced with fine of Rs.200/- and a sentence of till rising the Court with fine of Rs.600/-.
In criminal appeal the conviction for offence punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C was maintained and the sentence was reduced to the fine only whereas the co-accused Ram Shankar was acquitted in the appeal.
After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the evidence of the prosecution adduced before the trial Court it appears that the eye witnesses Dilip Singh (PW1) and Vijay Singh (PW2) have turned hostile.
However, Imrat Singh (PW3) has stated about the incident.
The testimony of the victim is duly supported by the timely lodged FIR and the medical evidence given by Dr.
Kastwar (PW4) , the applicant could not file any document to show that he had any previous enmity with the complainant therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant was falsely implicated in the matter due to enmity.
The trial Court has rightly found that the applicant was guilty of offence punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C.So far as the sentence is concerned, the applicant was 43 years old at the time of the incident and therefore, he was a mature person.
There was no ground to give an advantage of probation to him.
Under such circumstances, the appellate Court reduced his sentence to a fine of Rs.600/- then it cannot be said that any interference can be done in the sentence directed by the appellate Court.
On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, there is no ground to accept the revision filed by the applicant.
Consequently, the revision application filed by the applicant Devkinandan is dismissed at motion stage.
Copy of the order be sent to both the Courts below along with their record for information.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge bina