1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE. SINGLE BENCH:HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE U.C.MAHESHWARI, J. CRIMINAL REVISION NO.555/2011 Ramdev and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh _______________________________________________________ Shri M.I.Khan, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Deepak Rawal, Govt. Advocate for the respondent. O R D E R(Oral) (Passed on this day of November 28, 2011) Per: U.C.Maheswari, J. 1. The applicants/accused have preferred this revision being aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.05.2011, passed by XX Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in criminal appeal no.41/2011, whereby the judgment dated 20.01.2011, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No.2788/2003 convicting and sentencing the applicants under Sections 326/34 and 323 of IPC with a direction to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- in the first count while six months rigorous imprisonment in the second count, while applicant no.1 besides the aforesaid sections, has also been convicted under Section 25 (1-B) (b) of the Arms Act with a direction to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment, has been modified, according to such modification by maintaining the aforesaid conviction and sentence of the applicants under Section 326/34 and 323 of the IPC, the applicant no.1 has been acquitted from the alleged charge of the Arms Act. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that on 15.04.2003 at the instance of complainant Pawan Kumar, S/o Shivnarayan, a Dehati Nalishi was drawn up by some police official of the Police Station Rawjibazar. As per averments of it, at about 10.30 at night the complainant 2 alongwith his children was sitting at his home. At the same time, applicant Ramdev abused him and asked why he used to abuse him. On denying such fact by the complainant, said Ramdev lashed with a sword, while applicant no.2 with rod, applicant no.3 with hockey, applicant no.4 with stick and applicant no.5 with knife came there and started to give the blow of the same on the complainant. Some criminal intimidation were also given by them. Consequent to the aforesaid incident, complainant sustained injuries with bleeding, on which he was taken to the hospital, where his MLC report was prepared. On the advise of the doctor, X-ray of the injury of the nose was carried out, in which some fracture was revealed. As per medical opinion such fracture sustained by the victim in an incised wound. Initially, Ex.P-1 Dehati Nalishi was drawn up on which originally offence was registered at police station. On completion of the investigation, the applicants were charge sheeted for offence under Sections 294,326,324,323 and 506-II read with Section 34 of IPC. Initially the FIR was registered for offence under Sections 294,506,323 read with 34 of the IPC, but after receiving the MLC report and X-ray report, the said offence under Sections 324 and 326 of the IPC were additionally invoked. 3. On evaluation of the charge sheet, charge of Sections 294, 326/34 and 506-II were framed against all the applicants, while additional charge of Section 25 (1-B) (b) was framed against the applicant no.1. They abjured the guilt on which trial was held. On appreciation of the evidence, all the applicants were acquitted from the charge under Section 294 and 506-II of IPC by the trial Court, while they were convicted and sentenced under Sections 326/34 and 323 of the IPC, while applicant no.1 Ramdev was additionally sentenced and convicted under Section 25(1-B) (b) of the Arms Act. 4. On filing of the appeal by the applicants, on consideration, the same was allowed in part and the applicant no.1 was acquitted from the charge of 3 the Arms Act, while affirming the remaining findings of the trial Court the conviction and the sentence of the applicants under Sections 326/34 and 323 of the IPC was upheld. With these averments, the applicants have come before this Court in this revision. 5. Shri M.I.Khan, learned counsel appearing for the applicants after taking me through the record of the Court below alongwith impugned judgments, without challenging any findings of the Courts below holding conviction against the applicants for the aforesaid offence under Sections 326/34 and 323 of the IPC has made his limited submission for reducing the aforesaid awarded jail sentence of the applicants upto the period for which they have already undergone in the jail custody, as they are facing the jail sentence from 19.05.2011, the date of the impugned judgment of the appellate Court, by enhancing the amount of fine under the discretion of the Court. With this submission, he prayed to allow this revision. 6. On the other hand, Shri Rawal, learned Government Advocate by justifying the impugned judgment as well as the conviction and sentence of the applicants said that the same being based upon proper appreciation of the evidence and is in conformity with law, does not require any interference at this stage, either for extending the acquittal or reducing the jail sentence of the applicants under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court and prayed for dismissal of this revision. 7. Having heard the learned counsel at length and keeping in view their arguments, I have carefully gone into the record of both the Courts below alongwith the impugned judgments. 8. Although, the aforesaid conviction of the applicants under Sections 326/34 and 323 of the IPC has not been assailed by the applicants' counsel as he has argued on the limited prayer for reducing the jail sentence upto the period they have already undergone by enhancing the amount of fine, but in order to do the justice, I have carefully gone through the evidence 4 and the exhibited papers. On perusing the same, I have not found any perversity, illegality, irregularity, or anything contrary to the propriety of law, in appreciation of such evidence by any of the Courts below in their respective judgments or in holding guilty to the applicants for the aforesaid offence. So in the said premises, there is no scope to extend the acquittal to any of the applicants. Thus findings of the Court below holding the conviction of the applicants is hereby affirmed. 9. Coming to consider the prayer of the applicants' counsel for reducing the awarded jail sentence by the Courts below is concerned, in the available circumstances, I have found some substance in such prayer. It appears from the record that any of the applicant do not have any criminal past or antecedents and in such premises it could be deemed that they are first offenders. It is also apparent from the record that they are facing jail sentence since 19.05.2011, the date of the impugned judgment of the appellate Court. In such premises, they have already suffered more than six months, but looking to the nature of the case, and the manner in which the applicants have committed the offence, the period of six months rigorous imprisonment could not be said to be reasonable period, but certainly in the available circumstances, the jail sentence of three years awarded to the applicants and affirmed by the appellate Court with respect to offence under Section 326/34 of IPC is on a higher side. The same require some reduction. 10. Thus, considering the overall circumstances of the case, by affirming the impugned conviction of the applicants, I deem fit to reduce their jail sentence under Section 326/34 of IPC from three years to the period of one year by enhancing the amount of fine from Rs.500/- to Rs.1500/-, with respect to all the applicants with a direction to pay such enhanced sum of fine to the victim to sub serve the cause of justice with him also. 11. Therefore, by affirming the conviction of the applicants under Section 5 326/34 and 323 of the IPC and also by maintaining the conviction and punishment awarded under Section 323 of IPC, this revision is allowed in part and the jail sentence awarded to the applicants under Section 326/34 of IPC is reduced from three years to the period of one year, by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.500/- to Rs.1500/- each as stated above and in default of fine amount, the concerned applicant has to suffer further six months rigorous imprisonment. On depositing the aforesaid enhanced sum of fine, the same be given to the victim by calling him in the trial Court through summons. 12. Till this extent, the judgment of the appellate Court is hereby modified while the remaining findings of the same are hereby affirmed. Revision is allowed in part as indicated above. C.C.as per rules. ( U.C.MAHESHWARI) JUDGE RJ/