Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ummedsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. on 30 January, 2017
Author: S.K.Awasthi
Bench: S.K.Awasthi
-( 1 )- CRR No. 675/2015
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
SINGLE BENCH
BEFORE JUSTICE S.K.AWASTHI
Criminal Revision No 675/2015
Ummed Singh and another
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Brijesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri N.S.Tomar, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(30.01.2017) The present revision application is directed by the applicants under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 4.8.2015 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior (MP) in Criminal Appeal No. 39/2014, whereby the Sessions Court confirmed the judgment dated 24.12.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabra in Criminal Case No. 908/2011, by which the applicants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 323/34 IPC (on three counts) and sentenced each of them to suffer one month RI with fine of Rs.100/- for each offence. In default of payment of fine, the applicants shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for additional ten days.
2. In short, the prosecution story is that on 28.8.2011 at about 1 o'clock in the afternoon, the cattles belonging to complainant Hansraj went to the field of applicant No.1-Ummed Singh, on which the applicants-accused used abusive language against the complainant. On -( 2 )- CRR No. 675/2015 protest by the complainant, accused Ummed Singh gave lathi blows on the back and right palm of the complainant, accused Hariniwas gave lathi blows on his right shoulder. Lajjawati, aunt of complainant, came on the spot for rescue, to whom accused Ummed Singh assaulted by lathi causing injuries on her right ankle, left ankle and right hand. When Jyoti, the niece of complainant tried to save him, accused Hariniwas caused lathi blows on her head and both the legs. On complainant's crying, Gopal and Kailash came on the spot and saved them, thereafter the applicants-accused threatened to kill them in case of any report being lodged. The matter was reported to Police Station Bilaua, District Gwalior, where an FIR bearing Crime No. 229/2011 was registered against the accused persons. The charge-sheet was submitted against the present applicants before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabra District Gwalior.
3. After framing the charge and recording the evidence, the trial court convicted and sentenced the applicants as stated herein above. The appeal filed by the applicants has been dismissed. Hence, this revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants argued at length and submitted that the applicants have been convicted illegally by the courts below. Both the courts below have committed error in not properly appreciating the evidence which resulted into incorrect finding, which is liable to be set aside in this revision. Learned counsel for the applicants has alternatively submitted that the applicants have remained in jail for a period of -( 3 )- CRR No. 675/2015 approximately eight days and they have no criminal past nor they are involved in any unlawful activities subsequent to the incident involved in the present matter. He prays that these factors be considered for reducing the period of imprisonment imposed by the courts below to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the applicants.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that after due appreciation of the evidence the courts below have found the applicants guilty of the aforesaid offence. It is submitted that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited and no interference is called for in the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the commission of the alleged offence by the applicants is established on the basis of the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Hence, on the basis of material available on record, the courts below have not committed any error in convicting the applicants under Section 323/34 of IPC on three counts. So far as the period of sentence is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that looking to the nature of allegation and circumstances of the case and the fact that the applicants have already served approximately eight days jail sentence, the sentence awarded is reduced to the sentence already undergone by them subject to deposit of additional fine amount of Rs.900/- by each applicant for the each count. Out of the total amount of fine, i.e., Rs. 6000/-, a sum of Rs.1500/- shall be paid to each injured person, namely, Hansraj (complainant), Lajjawati and Jyoti as compensation under Section -( 4 )- CRR No. 675/2015 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In default of payment of fine amount, each applicant shall suffer 10 days RI for each offence.
With the aforesaid modification in the judgment of conviction and sentence, the revision petition is disposed of.
(S.K.Awasthi) Judge.
(yogesh)