Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shahzad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 August, 2024
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh, Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:24142
1 CRR-1929-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 21st OF AUGUST, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1929 of 2020
SHAHZAD
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Anand Bhatt, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1943 of 2020
RAIS @ SHAHID
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Anand Bhatt, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Reserved on - 14.08.2024
Delivered on - 21.08.2024
These revision petitions having been heard finally on consent of the parties
and reserved for judgment, coming on for pronouncement this day and the
Court passed the following
ORDER
This order shall govern the disposal of these revision petitions as they are arisen out of same crime of same police station, hence, they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI Signing time: 22-08- 2024 13:03:09NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:24142 2 CRR-1929-2020
2. These criminal revisions under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.07.2020, passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, District Mandsaur, in Cr.A. Nos.87 & 89/2018, whereby the appeals were partly allowed by affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence of the petitioners under Section 323/34 (2 counts) of IPC, 3 months R.I., however, reduced the sentence from 1 year to 6 months R.I. for offence under Section 325/34 of IPC, passed in order dated 28.06.2018 passed by JMFC, District Mandsaur in Criminal Case No.304/2012 whereby the petitioners have been convicted for offence under Section 323/34 (2 counts), 325/34 of IPC, 1860 and sentenced to undergo 03 months (2 counts) and 1 year R.I with fine of Rs.500/-(2 counts), Rs.1000/-, respectively and usual default stipulations.
3. In brief the prosecution case is that on 18.12.2011 the complainant Deepak, along with Govind S/o Babulal and Govind S/o Manu went to purchase cow in a motor cycle and when they reached near Madarpura Gati at that time accused persons Shahrukh, Shahid, Ahzaz, Shahzad, Suganbai, Jahid and Salma came there armed with iron rod (sabbal) and axe ( kulhadi) pulled them down from the motorcycle and started assaulting the complainant party on account of petty dispute regarding children playing 'Gulli Danda'. It is further alleged that they assaulted the complainant party on their head and hands due to which they sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter Sanjay, Radheshyam and Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI Signing time: 22-08- 2024 13:03:09 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:24142 3 CRR-1929-2020 Khana came there in rescue and the accused persons ran away from the spot. On the basis of information given by Khana, Dehati Nalisi was prepared and later on FIR was lodged at Crime No.855/2011 at Police Station City Kotwali, District Mandsaur. After due investigation charge sheet has been filed before the trial Court for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 325, 307 of IPC, 1860.
4. In turn learned trial Court after recording the evidence and on due consideration of evidence available on record convicted the petitioners as mentioned in para 2 of this order. An appeal has been filed by petitioners which was partly allowed by affirming the conviction and sentence passed by trial Court for offence under Section 323/34 (2 counts) of IPC, 3 months R.I. and reduced the sentence passed under Section 325/34 of IPC from 1 year R.I. to 6 months R.I, hence being aggrieved the petitioners have preferred the present petition.
5. The petitioners have preferred this criminal revision on several grounds but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners did not press this revision on merits and nor assailed the finding part of judgment. He confined his argument on the point of sentence only and prays that since the petitioners has already undergone approximately 45 days of jail incarceration out of 06 months, therefore their sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. The petitioners deserve some leniency as they have already suffered the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI Signing time: 22-08- 2024 13:03:09 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:24142 4 CRR-1929-2020 ordeal of the trial since 2011 for a period of more than 13 years. It is further contended that this petition be partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioners be reduced to the period already undergone or as the Court may deems fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case, by enhancing the fine amount.
6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of this revision.
7. Having considered the rival submissions and I have gone through the record.
8. 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, and accordingly, the same is upheld.
09. So far as the sentence of the petitioners is concerned, looking to the offence and nature of the allegation and the fact that the petitioner has already completed custody period of 45 days of their incarceration out of 6 months, they had already suffered the ordeal of the trial since 2011 for a period of 13 years, this Court finds it expedient to partly allow this Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI Signing time: 22-08- 2024 13:03:09 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:24142 5 CRR-1929-2020 revision petition by reducing the sentence of the petitioners by enhancing the fine amount.
10. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioners is hereby reduced to the sentence already undergone by increasing the fine amount from Rs.500/- to Rs.1,000/- (for each count) under Section 323/34 (2 counts) of IPC and from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.10,000/- for offence under Section 325/34 to be paid by the petitioners. If the petitioners are in jail, after depositing the fine amount, they shall be released from jail . Out of the fine amount to be deposited by the petitioners, Rs.2000/- each be paid to injured persons Deepak and Govind S/o Babulal and Rs.5000/- be paid of injured Govind S/o Mannu @ Manohar as compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C.
11. The fine amount and compensation amount, if already deposited shall be adjusted.
12. The bail bond of the petitioners shall be discharged after deposit of the fine amount. If the petitioners fail to deposit the fine amount, they will suffer two days of simple imprisonment in default.
13. The order of learned trial Court regarding disposal of the seized property, if any, stands confirmed.
14. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI Signing time: 22-08- 2024 13:03:09NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:24142 6 CRR-1929-2020
15. Pending application, if any, stands closed.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE sumathi Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI Signing time: 22-08- 2024 13:03:09