Madhya Pradesh High Court
Samrath vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 2024
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3022 of 2023
SAMRATH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Abhishek Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Surendra Gupta, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on : 12.09.2024
Pronounced on : 21.09.2024
ORDER
This criminal revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the order dated 15.07.2022, passed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Manasa, District Neemuch in Criminal Appeal No.10/2021, wherein the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and affirmed the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 9/21/2024 7:56:47 PM judgment dated 05.07.2021, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manasa, District Neemuch in Criminal Case No.527/2013, in which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 353 of IPC, sentenced to undergo one year R.I. with fine of Rs.300/- and usual default stipulation.
2. Prosecution story in nutshell is that, on 29.06.2013 at station Manasa District Neemuch, complainant Chandrabhan Singh lodged FIR and mentioned that in compliance of Court order, he alongwith Constable Yognedrasingh, went to serve the warrant against petitioner. On the date of incident, they went to the agriculture field of petitioner where the petitioner was called to comply with the Court order and in response to which the petitioner shouted and called his neighbor and other villagers. He pushed the constable Yogendra Singh and tried to assault him. Then they all left the place and came back to police station . Thereafter, an FIR bearing Crime No. 264/2013 was registered against for the offence punishable under Section 353 & 186 of IPC at Police Station Manasa, District Neemuch.
3. During investigation, spot map was prepared, and statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and thereafter the trial was conducted by the JMFC.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as 04 witnesses namely Gulab Rabbani (PW-1), Khwaja Hussain (PW-2), Chandrabhan Singh Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 9/21/2024 7:56:47 PM (PW-3) and Himmatsingh (PW-4). No witness has been examined in support of the defence by the petitioner.
5. The learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court having relied upon the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and other documents like FIR, thereafter, convicted the petitioner for the offences as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record. There is no connecting evidence to prove the fact that petitioner committed loot. It is also submitted that there are material contradictions and omission in statement of prosecution witnesses but the trial Court has glazed over these irregularities.
7. The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision on several grounds but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press this revision on merits and not assail the finding of conviction part of judgment. He confines his argument on the point of sentence only and prays that since the petitioner has already undergone approximately two months out of total incarceration, his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. The petitioner deserves some leniency as he has already suffered the ordeal of the trial since 2013 for a period of 11 years. It is also submitted that as per law, no minimum punishment is prescribed for the said offence and thereupon, it can be reduced to the period already undergone. It is further contended that this petition be Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 9/21/2024 7:56:47 PM partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the fine amount.
8. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of this revision. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgment after considering each and every circumstance of the case and convicted the petitioner rightly.
9. Having considered the rival submissions and I have gone through the record.
10. It is found that the Court below considered the evidence available on record and correctly found that the case of the prosecution is well supported by the witnesses and documentary testimony. The procedure was well followed by the prosecution and the witnesses of prosecution have profoundly supported the prosecution case. The Court below has well considered the material available on record, hence, no infirmity is found in the impugned order of conviction passed by the Court below, accordingly, the same is upheld.
11. So far as the sentence of the petitioner is concerned, looking to the offence and nature of the allegation and the fact that the petitioner has already completed custody period of two months of his incarceration out of one year, he has already suffered the ordeal of the trial since 2013 for a period of 11 years, this Court finds it Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 9/21/2024 7:56:47 PM expedient to partly allow this revision petition by reducing the sentence of the petitioner by enhancing the fine amount.
12. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioner is hereby reduced to the sentence already undergone by increasing the fine amount from Rs.500/- to Rs. 10,000/- under Section 353 of IPC to be paid by the petitioner within a period of one month from today.
13. The fine amount, if already deposited shall be adjusted.
14. The bail bond of the petitioner shall be discharged after deposit of the fine amount. If the petitioner fails to deposit the fine amount, he will suffer 15 days of simple imprisonment in default.
15. The order of learned trial Court regarding disposal of the seized property, if any, stands confirmed.
16. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance.
17. Pending application, if any, stands closed.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE Vindesh Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 9/21/2024 7:56:47 PM