Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sitaram Baghel vs The State Of M.P on 6 November, 2012
Criminal Revision No. 429 of 2002
06/11/2012
Shri L.S.Singh, Senior Advocate with Shri J.L.Singh,
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-
State.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the revision is finally disposed of.
The petitioner preferred this revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 05/04/2002 passed by Sessions Judge, Seoni, in Criminal Appeal No.169/2001, arising out of the judgment dated 31/10/2001 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Seoni in Criminal Case No.1091/2001, whereby the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as under
Provision Sentence u/s 451 IPC R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.200, in lieu of default, R.I. for one month. u/s 380/511 IPC R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.200, in lieu of default, R.I. for one month.
2. According to prosecution, on 04/09/1993 at 12.00 O'clock at the village Pusera, when Ghuro Bai was sleeping on Verendah of her house, the applicant/accused came there and attempted to steal silver ornaments from her feet. She raised alarm and her husband and son got up and caught hold of the accused/applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not challenge the finding of conviction of the petitioner but confined his arguments to the point of sentence only.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner had already suffered the jail sentence of 9 days. Therefore, his case be considered sympathetically and his sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone in jail.
5. Learned counsel for the State does not oppose the prayer of the petitioner's counsel but he submits that the fine amount should be enhanced.
6. It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction cannot embark upon re-appreciation of evidence unless the finding of fact,on the face of it, is illegal and perverse. The appellate judgment affirming the finding of guilt does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction. Both the Courts below have not committed any mistake in believing the statements of prosecution witnesses corroborated by medical evidence. Therefore, the petitioner is rightly convicted under Sections 451 and 380/511of IPC.
7. With regard to sentence, admittedly the petitioner remained in jail for a period of 09 days. No previous criminal conduct of the petitioner had been proved by the prosecution therefore he seems to be first offender. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case and submissions made by the counsel of the applicant/accused especially the fact that the incident is of 04/09/1993, it would not be in the interest of justice to send the petitioner back to jail to serve the remaining part of the sentence after lapse of 19 years. The interest of justice would be served, if the amount of fine is enhanced.
8. Consequently, this criminal revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner passed by the Court below is hereby maintained, but the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him and the fine amount is enhanced to Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) in both the offences, including the fine amount already deposited by him. The remaining amount be deposited in the trial Court within 3 months, failing which he shall undergo S.I. for 2 months.
9. With the aforesaid directions and modifications in the sentence, revision petition stands disposed of.
10. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.
(SMT.VIMLA JAIN) JUDGE manju