1 Criminal Revision No.908/2009 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Revision No.908/2009 Rampal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name of counsel for the parties: Shri H.S. Verma, Advocate for the applicant. Shri G.S. Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ O R D E R (Passed on 12th day of July, 2011) The applicant was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panna vide judgment dated 12.9.2008 in criminal case no.165/05 for the offences punishable under Sections 451 & 324 of IPC and sentenced for six months R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- on each count. He was to undergo for two months additional period in the custody in lieu of payment of fine for each count. In criminal appeal no.87/08 learned Sessions Judge, Panna vide judgment dated 12.5.2009 dismissed his appeal in toto. Being aggrieved by the judgment of both the Courts below, the applicant has preferred this revision. 2. Prosecution's case in short is that on 10.2.2005 the complainant Indrajeet Patel resident of village Madiyan was visiting towards his house. When he passed near by the house of 2 Criminal Revision No.908/2009 the applicant, Vidhya Bai wife of the applicant spat upon him. Some dispute took place due to that event. On 11.2.2005 at about 1:00 p.m. in the noon, the applicant visited the house of the complainant alongwith Heeralal and his wife Vidhya Bai and started abusing him. The applicant tried to assault the complainant by Ballam, then the victim tried to go inside the house. In the meantime, the applicant assaulted him by Ballam causing injury on his left forehead. Another accused namely Vidhya Bai assaulted Gulab Bai wife of the complainant. The complainant lodged an FIR to the Police Station Devendra Nagar, Panna. The victim was sent to the hospital for his medical examination and treatment. After due investigation, challan was filed before the concerned Court. 3. The applicant abjured his guilt. He took the plea that he was falsely implicated in the matter. In support, he examined himself as a defence witness. 4. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above, whereas his appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Panna in toto. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal 3 Criminal Revision No.908/2009 past alleged against him. It is alleged against the applicant that he assaulted the victim by Ballam causing minor injury. The incident took place in front of the house. The applicant has suffered the trial, appeal and this revision since February 2005 i.e. for more than six years. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant remained in the custody for 15 days and, therefore, he may not be sent back to the jail again. He is a poor person. However, little fine amount may be increased. 7. Since learned counsel for the applicant does not challenge the conviction directed against the applicant and there is concurrent finding of conviction given by both the Courts below, it would not be proper to make any interference in the conviction directed by the trial Court. As far as the sentence is concerned, the contention laid by learned counsel for the applicant seems to be acceptable. The applicant has no criminal past as alleged against him. He assaulted the victim once only. The applicant has faced the trial, appeal and this revision for last six years, whereas he remained in the custody for 15 days, therefore, it would be proper to reduce the jail sentence to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody. There is no need to increase any fine amount for the offence under Section 451 of IPC. The fine amount for the 4 Criminal Revision No.908/2009 offence under Section 324 of IPC may be enhanced from a sum of Rs.500/- to the sum of Rs.2,500/-. 8. Consequently, the criminal revision filed by the applicant is hereby partly allowed. The conviction directed by the Courts below for the offences punishable under Sections 451 & 324 of IPC is hereby confirmed but the jail sentence is reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody. There is no need to increase the fine amount for the offence under Section 451 of IPC, but the fine imposed for the offence under Section 324 of IPC is hereby increased from a sum of Rs.500/- to the sum of Rs.2,500/-. The applicant is required to deposit a sum of Rs.2,000/- more as the fine amount. He is directed to deposit the remaining fine amount before the trial Court within two months from today. In default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo in the custody for three months R.I. 9. Now, the presence of the applicant is no more required before the Court or its Office, therefore, it is directed that the bail bonds of the applicant shall stand discharged. (N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE 12.07.2011 pnkj