Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tulsiram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 11 September, 2013
Author: A.K. Shrivastava
Bench: A.K. Shrivastava
CRR No. 75/2009
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH:
Hon'ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 75/2009
Applicant : Tulsiram
s/o Jhaddolal, Caste Pawar,
R/o Poorwada, P.S. Barghat,
District Seoni (M.P.)
Versus
Respondent : State of Madhya Pradesh
through Police Station Barghat
District Seoni (M.P.)
---------------------------------------------
Shri A.D. Mishra, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Amit Pandey, Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
---------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Passed on this 11th day of September, 2013) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 6.1.2009 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Seoni in Criminal Appeal No.99/2008 thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8.8.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Seoni in Criminal Case No.701/2008 sentencing the applicant to suffer 6 months R.I. and fine of Rs.1000/-; in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment of one month, the applicant has preferred CRR No. 75/2009 2 this revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. No exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this revision. Suffice it to say that the applicant caused injuries by lathi to the injured-complainant Ramsingh (PW-1) as a result of which the applicant along with co- accused, namely, Jairam was tried for the charges punishable under Section 325/34 IPC. After trial, co-accused Jairam was acquitted from the charges, however, the present applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC and has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment as mentioned in para-1 of this order. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been affirmed by the learned first Appellate Court. In this manner, this revision application has been filed by the applicant.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that looking to the evidence placed on record it is not proved that the applicant caused lathi injury to the complainant. However, I do not find any merit in this contention. On bare perusal of statement of injured Ramsingh (PW-1) it is gathered that some altercation took place between the applicant and him on the point of fuel-wood. Thereafter, the applicant caused injury by lathi to him. Specifically this witness is saying that the lathi injury was caused on the thumb of his right hand, resulting into the fracture. The statement of this witness is corroborated by Pramila Bai (PW-3) and also by Dr. CRR No. 75/2009 3 Yogesh Agarwal (PW-6), who found the injuries on the person of the injured which are mentioned in the injury report (Ex.P-4) and which read, thus:-
(I) contusion 3 cm x 3 cm over right wrist;
(II) abrasion mark 3 cm x 1 cm appearing
on left side of waist;
(III) abrasion mark 3 cm x 2 cm on left
shoulder; and
(IV) lacerated abrasion 2 x 1 cm on the
middle finger of the left leg
The injured Ramsingh (PW-1) was sent for radiological examination. The report of X-ray is Ex.P-5 in which a fracture was found on his right thumb. Thus, according to me, the learned two Courts below did not commit any error in convicting the applicant under Section 325 IPC.
4. An alternative submission has been put forth by learned counsel for the applicant that out of 6 months of total Jail sentence, the applicant has already suffered Jail sentence of near about 20 days, therefore, he be released for the period he had already undergone.
5. Looking to the facts and circumstances, the alternative prayer is accepted and the applicant is released for the period he had already undergone, however, the fine amount is enhanced from Rs.1000/- to Rs.8000/-. It has been submitted that amount of fine Rs.1000/- has already been deposited in the Trial Court. This fact be verified by learned Trial Court. Let the balance amount of Rs.7000/- be deposited by the applicant in the Trial Court towards CRR No. 75/2009 4 fine for the offence he has committed. Let the total amount of fine Rs.8000/- be paid to complainant Ramsingh s/o Shivcharan, R/o Ghoorwada, Police Station Barghat, District Seoni, who was examined in the Trial Court as PW-1 towards compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Court is hereby directed to disburse the said amount to the complainant.
6. The amount of compensation may be deposited in the entirety or in installment. However, it is made clear that only upon depositing Rs.7000/- more by the applicant (in total Rs.8000/-), he shall be enlarged for the period he had already undergone. It is further made clear that in case the applicant fails to deposit the compensation amount, he shall serve the sentence of 4 months R.I.
7. Resultantly, this revision application succeeds and is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. The impugned judgment of conviction of applicant under Sections 325 IPC passed by learned Trial Court, which has been affirmed by learned first Appellate Court is hereby affirmed. However, the sentence of the applicant is modified as indicated hereinabove.
8. The Registrar (J) is hereby directed to send the copy of this order to the learned Trial Court so as to enable the said Court to disburse the amount of fine to the injured-complainant.
(A.K. Shrivastava) Judge 11-09-2013.
S/