Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra vs State Of M.P. on 28 August, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19543
1 CRR-1021-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 28th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1021 of 2013
JITENDRA AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Ms. Prachi Sharma - advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Puran Kulshreshtha AAG - for the respondent/State.
ORDER
1. With consent of both the parties, matter is heard finally.
2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by petitioners being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 09.12.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pichhore distt. Shivpuri in Cr.Appeal Nos.110 of 2013 and 111 of 2013, whereby affirming the judgment and order of conviction dated 05.03.2013 passed by JMFC, Pichhore in Criminal Case No.851 of 2012, convicting the petitioners under Section 224 of IPC sentencing them to undergo SI for one-one year with fine of Rs.1000-1000/- each with default stipulations.
3. Prosecution story in brief is that, complainant, a constable has lodged an FIR at PS Pichhore Distt. Shivpuri on 16.05.2012 stating that he along with another constable Anand Sharma went to produce accused Jitendra and Rajkumar in Crime No.178 of 2012 before the court of JMlFC, Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAM KUMAR SHARMA Signing time: 8/29/2025 11:15:24 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19543 2 CRR-1021-2013 Pichhore. After producing them in the court, both the accused were made to sit in the courtyard and he went to compete the paper work leaving another constable on the spot. When he returned back, both the accused ran away pushing constable Anand Sharma and despite hectic search, they could not be traced. Accordingly, the offence has been registered.
4. After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner-accused before JMFC, Pichhore who framed charges under Section 224 of IPC against the both the appellants. They abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication. Prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses while defence has not examined any witness in their defence.
5. The trial Court after scrutinizing evidence available on record and considering the rival submissions made by both the parties, has convicted the petitioner under Section 224 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo SI for one year with fine of Rs.1000/- each with usual default stipulations. The petitioners have filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court which was dismissed affirming the judgment of trial court as stated herein above. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, this criminal revision has been preferred before this Court.
6. Petitioners have preferred this criminal revision on several grounds but during the course of argument, learned counsel for petitioners did not press this revision on merit and not assailed the finding part of impugned judgment. He confines his arguments on the point of sentence only and prays that the petitioners have now turned to be of 35 and 36 years of age respectively and petitioner No.1 Rajkumar remained in custody during trial Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAM KUMAR SHARMA Signing time: 8/29/2025 11:15:24 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19543 3 CRR-1021-2013 from 17.12.2012 to 24.01.2013 (total 39 days) and after judgment from 09.12.2013 to 03.01.2014 (total one month 21 days) and petitioner No.2 Jitendra remained in custody during trial from 17.05.2012 to 26.12.2012 (total 17 days) and ater conviction from 09.12.2013 to 30.01.2014 (total one month 21 days), having no criminal antecedents, therefore, it is prayed that present revision be disposed of and jail sentence awarded to the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone.
7. Learned counsel for respondent/State on the other hand supported the impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of this revision.
8. Since petitioners have not challenged the conviction recorded by Courts below, in these circumstances conviction recorded against petitioners for the offence as stated herein above is hereby affirmed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that petitioner No.1 Rajkumar remained in custody during trial from 17.12.2012 to 24.01.2013 (total 39 days) and after judgment from 09.12.2013 to 03.01.2014 (total one month 21 days) and petitioner No.2 Jitendra remained in custody during trial from 17.05.2012 to 26.12.2012 (total 17 days) and after conviction from 09.12.2013 to 30.01.2014 (total one month 21 days), having no criminal antecedents, therefore, this Court finds that it would be appropriate to partly allow the revision by affirming the conviction, however, by reducing his jail sentence to the period already undergone with the fine as awarded by the trial court.
09. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed by maintaining the conviction, but reducing the jail sentence to the period already undergone Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAM KUMAR SHARMA Signing time: 8/29/2025 11:15:24 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19543 4 CRR-1021-2013 by petitioners with fine as imposed by the trial court under Section 224 of IPC. The petitioners shall deposit the amount of amount as imposed by the trial court, if not already deposited from today and in case of default of depositing the fine amount, the trial Court shall proceed accordingly. Since the petitioners are already on bail, their bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged. Disposal of property shall be conducted as per the order of trial Court.
10. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court along with the records for information and necessary compliance.
11. Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Rks Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAM KUMAR SHARMA Signing time: 8/29/2025 11:15:24 AM