1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH ; JABALPUR Cr.R.No. 1767/2011 Malkhan Singh Vs. The State of M.P. For the Applicant : Shri S.K.Gangrade, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Yogesh Dhande, Dy.GA ORDER (oral) (14/11/2011) Per : U.C.Maheshwari J. The applicant/accused has filed this revision under section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C, being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 28.09.2011 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sohagpur in Cr.A.No.125/11 whereby his conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court under section 323 of the IPC for 1 year RI, has been affirmed. 2. The case of the prosecution in short is that on 12.10.08 at about 7 O'clock in the evening, the complainant Mohan Singh, being agriculturist, was sitting in the shop of one Kanhiya Gujar, at the same time, the applicant came in front of such shop and called the complainant. On asking the complainant regarding reason for calling him, on which, the applicant demanded Rs.500/- from him for the expenses of liquor. The complainant denied to give the same, on which, by taking the stick lying in front of the shop, the applicant started his beating. On hearing the noise of quarrel, the witness Mukesh Patel and Arjun Patel came there to rescue him. Due to such beating, the complainant sustained injury on his head with bleeding. Subsequent to the incident, he went to the police station and lodged the report from where he was sent to the hospital. After his medical 2 examination, his MLC report was prepared in which a lacerated wound measuring 3” X 1/2” with bleeding was found on his left forearm while in the right forearm, an abrasion was found. Besides this, an abrasion was also found at the center of the back side. After completion of the investigation, the applicant was charge- sheeted for the offence of section 323,294,327 and 506 of the IPC. On evaluation of the charge-sheet,the charges of section 294,327 and 506-II of the IPC were framed and the trial was held. On appreciation of the evidence, he was acquitted from all the aforesaid charge but was held guilty under section 323 of the IPC and sentenced for RI one year. On filing the appeal, the same was dismissed. Thereafter, the applicant has come to this court with this revision. 3. The applicant's counsel without challenging the findings of the impugned judgment holding conviction against the applicant under the aforesaid sections made his limited submissions, firstly the applicant being first offender, did not have any criminal antecedents, be extended the benefit of the Probation of the Offenders Act and secondly and also in alternative, he prayed to reduce the jail sentence of the applicant up to the period for which he has suffered one day in the judicial custody during pendency of the trial and 14 days subsequent to the impugned judgment of the appellate court till passing the order of suspension of the jail sentence on 11.10.2011 by this court, by enhancing the amount of fine under the discretion of the court and prayed for allowing this revision till this extent. 4. On the other hand, Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Dy. G.A by justifying the impugned conviction and sentence said that the same being based on proper appreciation of the evidence, is in conformity with law, does not require any interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this court either for extending the acquittal to the applicant or to extend the benefit of the Probation of the Offenders 3 Act or to reduce the jail sentence awarded by the courts below and prayed for dismissal of this revision. 5. Having heard the counsel at length, keeping in view their arguments advanced, I have carefully gone through the records of the courts below. I have not found any perversity, infirmity or illegality or anything against the propriety of the law in appreciation of the evidence in the impugned judgments of the courts below holding guilty to the applicant for the aforesaid offence. In such premises, there is no scope in the matter to extend acquittal to the applicant. 6. Coming to consider the arguments advanced by the applicant's counsel for extending the benefit of the Probation of the Offenders Act is concerned, looking to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed by the applicant as stated above, I am not inclined to extend such benefit to the applicant, hence such prayer of the applicant is hereby failed. 7. So far the alternative prayer of the applicant for reducing the jail sentence is concerned, I have found some substance in it. It is apparent from the record that applicant is the first offender and did not have any criminal antecedents except the present case and he has already suffered the mental agony of the impugned case during pendency of the trial and the appeal by appearing in such court on each and every hearing. Beside this, he has also suffered the jail sentence of 15 days out of the awarded jail sentence as submitted by the applicant's counsel. In such premises, looking to the nature of the offence and the nature of the injury sustained by the victim, I deem fit to reduce his jail sentence upto the period for which he has already suffered as stated above but by imposition of the fine amount with a direction to give such sum to the complainant to sub serve the justice with him also. 8. Therefore, by affirming the findings of the courts below holding conviction 4 against the applicant under the aforesaid section 323 of IPC, this revision is allowed in part and his jail sentence is hereby reduced from one year to 15 days as discussed above by imposing the fine of Rs.1000/- to be deposited in the trial court within 30 days from today. In default of depositing the fine amount, he has to suffer further two months RI. On depositing such fine amount, the same be given to the complainant by calling him in the court through summons. The bail bonds of the applicant are hereby discharged. Till this extent, the impugned judgment is modified while the remaining findings of the same are hereby affirmed. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL 5