Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prashant Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 August, 2018
Cr.R. No.3764/2017 1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Cr.R. No.3764/2017
(Prashant Soni vs. The State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated:13/08/2018
Shri Piyush Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rajesh Joshi, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 25/09/2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Badwah, District Khargone in Cri. Appeal No.108/2015, wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge has partly allowed the appeal passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Badwah vide order dated 11/03/2015, in Criminal Case No.427/2013 by acquitting the applicant from offence under Section 338 of IPC and maintaining the conviction and reducing the sentence of the applicant from 3 years R.I. to 2 years R.I for offence under Section 420 of IPC and affirming the conviction and sentence for offence under Section 24 of M.P. Ayurvigyan Parishan Adhiniyam, 1987.
02. The prosecution story, briefly stated, is that on 07/03/2012, at about 10.00 to 11.00 hrs., complainant Nirmalabai Pandiya has gone to the clinic of the present applicant with the complaint of tooth ache. Applicant advised her for X-ray examination and for extraction of tooth which was paining. When the complainant informed him that she has not taken her breakfast, then applicant advised that she can have her breakfast after removing her teeth also. It is alleged that the applicant gave her anesthesia injection and wrongly removed her molar teeth which was not paining instead of the teeth which was actually infected and paining. It is further Cr.R. No.3764/2017 2 alleged that the applicant without having qualification of Dental Surgeon has extracted the tooth of complainant. Therefore, complainant filed a written complaint in police station Badwah and on the basis of this report, police registered a case against the applicant for offence under Section 338, 420 of I.P.C read with Section 24 of M.P. Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam 1987. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed and trial Court, while passing the judgment, convicted the applicant for offence punishable under Sections 338, 420 of I.P.C read with Section 24 of M.P. Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam 1987. An appeal was filed against the impugned judgment, which was partly allowed vide order dated 25/09/2017. This order is under challenge in the present revision petition.
03. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present matter. Learned counsel further submits that the independent witnesses of the case did not support the prosecution story and the finding given by the appellate Court is self contradictory. The Courts below have committed error in not properly appreciating the evidence, thus, the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside in the revision. Lastly it is submitted that since the applicant is in custody since 25/09/2017 and have served more than 10 months jail sentence, therefore, the same be reduced to the period already undergone and the amount of fine may be reasonably enhanced.
04. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that after due appreciation of the evidence learned Courts below have found the applicant guilty of the offence. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited and no interference is called for in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below.
05. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record it is noticed that commission of the alleged offence by the applicant is established on the basis of the statements of complainant - Nirmalabai (P.W.1) and prosecution witnesses Abhay (P.W.2), Dinesh(P.W.3), Cr.R. No.3764/2017 3 Brijesh (P.W.4), Mohit (P.W.9), Anshul (P.W.10), Dr. Nita Pandit (P.W.5), Dentist Dr. Priyanka (P.W.6) and Dr. Viraj Balke (P.W.8)
06. In view of the aforesaid and on the basis of the material available on the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Courts below have not committed any illegality in convicting the applicant for offence under Sections 420 of I.P.C read with Section 24 of M.P. Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam 1987.
07. So far as the period of sentence is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that looking to the nature of allegation and the circumstances of the case and the fact that the applicant have already served more than 10 months jail sentence, therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant is reduced to the period which he has already undergone, subject to depositing additional fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 420 of IPC and Rs.2,500/-under Section 24 of M.P. Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam 1987, by the applicant, within a period of 30 days. In default of payment of enhanced fine amount, the applicant shall suffer 1 month RI each under each Sections. The enhanced fine amount of Rs.7,500/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C.
08. With the aforesaid modification the revision petition is disposed of. It is directed that the applicant shall be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for information and necessary compliance.
(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE sumathi Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 2018.08.17 11:09:51 +05'30'