1 Cr.R. No.826/2002 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR BEFORE : TARUN KUMAR KAUSHAL, J. CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 826 OF 2002 APPLICANTS: 1. Banti @ Rajiv, S/o Amarchand Paliwal, aged about 25 years, 2. Ashok, S/o Jeevraj Paliwal, aged about 25 years, 3. Madan S/o Jeevraj Paliwal, aged about 28 years. All cultivators and residents of Gram Balagaon, P.S. Rahatgaon, District- Hoshangabad, At present District- Harda (M.P) Versus RESPONDENT: State of Madhya Pradesh ****************************************************************** For Applicants : Shri Manish Datt, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Vivek Lakhera, Panel Lawyer ****************************************************************** J U D G M E N T 13/12/2011 This revision has been preferrred against the judgment dated 12/07/2002 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Harda in Criminal Appeal no. 51/2000 convicting the applicant no.1 Banti @ Rajiv under section 325, 452, 427 IPC and sentenced to one year R.I and fine of Rs.1000/- on each count. 2. Conviction of remaining applicant is under section 452, 324/34 and sentenced to one year R.I and fine of Rs.500/- on each count and convicted both of them under section 323 IPC and sentenced to 1 year R.I. 3. Vide impugned order, appellate court has confirmed the order of the trial court regarding conviction and sentence passed by the 2 Cr.R. No.826/2002 JMFC, Harda in Criminal case no. 424/1995 on 10/03/2009. 4. Facts of the case, in short, are that on 23/11/1993 at about 9.00 pm, Sua Bai (PW-4) was apprehended by the applicants. They abused her and started quarrelling. While Sua Bai (PW-4) was coming to her house, she was assaulted by applicants with lathi and axe. Her husband Sita Ram (PW-6) was also assaulted by the applicants. Sua Bai (PW-4) lodged FIR Ex.D-1 at police station Rahatgoan. A case at Crime No.84/1993 under section 294, 324, 452, 427/34 IPC was registered against the applicants. Sua Bai (PW-4) and Sita Ram (PW-6) were sent for their medical examination. 5. Completing investigation, police Rahatgaon submitted charge sheet under section 294, 324, 452, 427/34 IPC in the Court of JMFC, Harda. Trial court framed charge on the appellant No.1 Banti under section 452, 324 and 427 of IPC and on remaining applicants under section 452, 324/34, 323 IPC. Applicants abjured guilt. 6. Defence of the applicants in Trial Court was that of self defence of the person and was false implication also. Applicant Banti and Madan also sustained injuries in this incident. 7. To substantiate case of the prosecution statements of Dr.V.S. Mauraya (PW-1), Dr. Pradeep Joshi (PW-2), Dr. H.P. Singh (PW-3), Sua Bai, injured (PW-4), Prem Narayan (PW-5), Sita Ram, injured (PW-6), Ram Gopal (PW-7), Ram Baksh (PW-8), and Laxmi Narayan (PW-9) were recorded. To substantiate defence of the applicants, statements of Kailash Narayan (DW-1), Prabhu Dayal (DW-2), and Dr. V.S. Mauraya (DW-3) were recorded. Appreciating the aforesaid evidence, trial court convicted and sentence the applicants as above. 8. Aforesaid judgment of trial court was assailed by the applicants in appeal before IInd Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Harda. Appeal was dismissed. Hence this revision is preferred on the ground that appreciation of evidence is not proper. Evidence of prosecution witnesses is suffering from material contradictions, ommissions, and exaggration. There had been no explaination in the statements of the prosecution witnesses for the injuries sustained by the applicants. Thereby entire story of the prosecution is doubtful and is false. On the other hand learned Panel Lawyer supported the findings of conviction and sentence both. 3 Cr.R. No.826/2002 9. Dr. V.S. Mauraya (PW-1) and also has been examined as DW-3 on 23/11/1993 examined Sita Ram (PW-6) and found him complaining pain in his left hand. However there had been no visible injury. His MLC report is Ex.P-1. 10. Dr. Pradeep Joshi (PW-2) on 23/11/1993 examined Sua Bai (PW-4) and found injuries as follow:- (i) Incised wound 2 X1/2X1/2 inch on forehead above the left eye. (ii) She was complaining pain on back side of left shoulder. Dr. Joshi (PW-2) prepared MLC report Ex.P-2 and referred her for further treatment. 11. Dr. H.P. Singh (PW-3) stated that PW-4 was admitted in the hospital on referrence and advised for X-ray, but PW-2 did not find any fracture on the person of PW-4. X-ray report showing nothing abnormal detected in Ex.P-4. 12. In view of the medical evidence it remains no longer disputed that simple injuries were sustained by Sua Bai (PW-4) and Sita Ram (PW-6) in this incident. 13. Sua Bai (PW-4) stated that applicant Banti came with an axe and Ashok came holding lathi. They came together and Banti inflicted axe blow on her head. During trial she was subjected to a very lengthy cross examination, but nothing came in her statement which render her doubtful. Sita Ram (PW-6) supported the evidence of Sua Bai (PW-4) on all material particulars. 14. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant Rajeev sustained as many as 7 injuries on his person and appellant Madan sustain 3 injuries. Ex. D-6 and Ex.D-7 are their MLC reports. 15. Courts below, in my opinion appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in right prespective. At this stage I do not think it proper to interfere with such concurrent findings. No perversity is revealed in finding of conviction of the applicants. 16. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that during investigation, trial and appeal, applicants have suffered custody of about 14 days. This incident had occurred about 18 years 4 Cr.R. No.826/2002 ago. No useful purpose would be served in sending the applicants back to jail. 17. In view of the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in view of the fact that one injury had been received by Sua Bai (PW-4) on her head, for an offence under section 452, 324 or 324/34 427 and 323 IPC undergone jail sentence of 2 weeks seems to be just and proper. However, in the manner in which incident took place, for an offence under section 324 IPC, fine amount deserves to be enhanced. 18. Conviction of the applicants are confirmed. Jail sentence undergone by the applicants i.e 14 days is sufficient for aforesaid offence under section 452, 427 and 323 IPC. For offence under section 324 IPC fine amount is enhanced from Rs.1000/- to Rs.3000/-. In default of payment of fine applicants shall undergo 1 month R.I. 19. Revision is allowed in part as indicated above. 20. For offence under section 324 IPC fine is enhanced from Rs. 1000/- to 3000/-. For offence under section 324/34 IPC fine is enhanced to Rs. 2500/-. In default of payment of fine applicants shall undergo 2 months R.I. 21. Applicants are directed to appear before the trial court on or before 31/01/2012 to deposit the balance fine amount or to undergo default sentence as the case may be. Certified copy as per rules. (Tarun Kumar Kaushal) Judge tarun