Madhya Pradesh High Court
Badri Vishal Tripathi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 October, 2015
CRR-1228-2008
(BADRI VISHAL TRIPATHI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
06-10-2015
None for the applicant.
Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, panel lawyer for the
respondent No.1/State.
A perusal of the record reveals that no one had appeared on behalf of the applicant on previous five dates i.e 25.03.2015, 24.04.2015, 18.06.2015, 21.07.2015 and 20.08.2015. Last time some one had appeared on behalf of the applicant on 06.02.2012. In aforesaid circumstances, it is apparent that the applicant is no longer interested in prosecuting this criminal revision.
This criminal revision is yet to be admitted. It is directed against the judgment dated 28.03.2008 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Rewa in Criminal Appeal No. 317/2005. Criminal Appeal No. 317/2005 was directed against the judgment dated 29.10.2005 passed by the Court of JMFC, Sirmour in Criminal Case No. 126/1997, whereby respondents Kalyan Singh, Dadan Singh @ Shivendra Singh, Munna Namdeo and deceased appellant Dinesh Singh were convicted. Dinesh Singh was convicted under Section 394 of the IPC. Kalyan Singh, Dadan Singh @ Shivendra Singh and Munna Namdeo were convicted under Sections 342 and 323 of the I.P.C. During the pendency of the appeal before the Special Judge, appellant Dinesh Singh expired on 13.12.2007. In appeal though the conviction of remaining appellants (respondents herein) under Sections 342 and 323 was maintained, the sentence was reduced.
The order reducing the sentence as aforesaid, by learned appellate Court is subject matter of challenge in this criminal revision.
However, a perusal of the judgment of the appellate Court reveals that the appellate Court had taken into account the period already spent by applicant Kalyan Singh in custody. It was further observed that the case was pending since the year, 1997; therefore, short jail sentence of three months each was considered unnecessary and instead amount of fine was enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 800/-
In aforesaid circumstances, the impugned judgment does not appear to suffer from illegality, irregularity or impropriety warranting interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction.
Consequently, this criminal revision is dismissed.
(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE