Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hari Pratap Singh Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 July, 2014
Cr.Revision No. 1382 of 2013
1
Hari Pratap Singh Thakur vs State of M.P.
30 / 0 7 / 2 0 1 4
Shri K.K. Kushwah, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri R.S. Sharma, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent /State.
Applicant Hari Pratap is personally present before this Court. He is identified by his counsel. His presence be marked.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
Applicant Hari Pratap has assailed the judgment of dated 20/07 / 2 013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in Criminal Appeal No.181 /2011 arising out of judgment dated 28 /03 / 2 011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tikamgarh in Criminal Case No.280 /2007 convicting the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 327 of IPC and sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000 /- , in default of payment of fine, the applicant has to suffer one month's additional rigorous imprisonment.
The prosecution case in short is that on 10.03.2007, complainant Hariram lodged a report at police station to the effect that applicant had voluntarily causing hurt to extort money on his person by fits and leg, abused him and threatened him with dire consequences. The police registered the crime for the offence punishable under Section 341, 294, 323 and 327 and 506- II of IPC. After investigation, police recorded the statement of the complainant and prepared the spot map. After completion of investigation charge-sheet has been filed.
Cr.Revision No. 1382 of 2013 2In order to bring home the charges against applicant the prosecution examined four witnesses and placed four documents on record. The defence did not examine any witness and exhibited one document.
The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class acquitted the applicant from the charges of Section 341, 294 and 506- II of IPC, against which State did not prefer any appeal. But, held the applicant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323 and 327 of IPC and convicted and sentenced him under Section 327 of IPC for rigorous imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs. 1000 /- with default stipulation. Thereafter, the applicant filed a Criminal Appeal before the Sessions Court, Tikamgarh and learned Sessions Judge affirmed the judgment of conviction passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, District Tikamgarh but reduced the period of sentenced from rigorous imprisonment for one years to rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.1000 / - with default stipulation.
Shri K.K. Kushwah, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned courts below have committed an error in holding the applicant guilty under Section 323 and 327 of IPC. It is also submitted that learned trial Court committed grave error in overlooking that there are material contradictions, omissions in depositions of prosecution witnesses. Fine amount has already been deposited. Finally, it is prayed that revision be allowed and the sentence be set aside in respect of the offence punishable under Section 327 of the I.P.C.
Per contra, Shri Vijay Pandey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent has submitted that after due Cr.Revision No. 1382 of 2013 3 appreciation of prosecution evidence, the learned courts below have found the offence proved against the applicant, which requires no interference.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below and statements of prosecution witnesses particularly complainant Hariram (PW/1), Shiv Shankar (PW/3), I am of the view that no error has been committed by learned Courts below in recording the guilty of the applicant as mentioned hereinabove and in convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 327 of IPC on the basis of aforesaid witnesses.
Dr. Anurag Jain (PW/2) has also supported the case of the prosecution.
Though other witnesses, Mukesh (PW/4) was declared hostile and Investigation Officer did not examine due to his death, but learned Courts below rightly came to the conclusion that testimony of Hariram (PW/1) and Shiv Shankar (PW/3) is of sterling quality and can be the basis of conviction of the applicant and cannot be brushed aside on this simple reason that statement of investigation officer has not been recorded.
Other discrepancies which have been highlighted do not really earn the status of contraction to make the evidence of these witnesses impeachable, incredible or not beyond reproach. Therefore, the present revision is likely to be dismissed on its merits.
Now, the question arises that as to how a balance should be struck and maintained in regard to the sentence.
Cr.Revision No. 1382 of 2013 4About seven years have been elapsed from the date of incident i.e. 09.03.2007. It is pertinent to mention here that 30 years old agriculturist applicant Hari Pratap now 37 years old was under custody for a period of 53 days i.e. from 10.03.2007 to 14.03.2007 (5 days) during trail, then from the date of impugned judgment ie. from 20.07.2013 to 05.09.2013 when he was released on bail by this Court (48 days) Considering the above facts and circumstance of the case and also taking into consideration that the present applicant had already suffered jail sentence of more than one and two- third months, I am of the considered view that the instant case more importance sentence should be that applicant Hari Pratap should be sentenced to the period already undergone by him; namely one month and 23 days against the actual imprisonment as he was punished for rigorous imprisonment of six months with fine of Rs.1000 / - . The fine amount has already been deposited.
In the result, upholding the order of conviction recorded by the learned courts below, I reduce the sentence awarded to the applicant to the sentence already undergone by him. The revision is to that extent allowed and the impugned judgment modified. The applicant is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged.
(SUBHASH KAKADE)
SJ/- JUDGE