Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRR/3703/2017 of JAGDISH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 11 September 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDOREBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLAON THE 5[th] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3703 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
1.JAGDISH S/O MADAN, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,GRAM DAULATPURA TEH.AND DISTT.DHAR(MADHYA PRADESH)
2.SUMERSINGH F/O MADAN, AGED ABOUT 39YEARS, GRAM DAULPURA (MADHYA PRADESH)YEARS, GRAM DAULPURA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.AMAN @AMARSINGH F/O MADAN GRAMDAULATPURA TEH. SARDARPUR (MADHYAPRADESH)
(SHRI VIJAY SHARMA- ADVOCATE)
.....PETITIONER
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSEOFFICER THRU.P.S.NALCHHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(SHRI AJAY RAJ GUPTA- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
.....RESPONDENT
This revision coming on for orders this day, th e court passed the following:
ORDER
The present revision is filed under section 397/401 of Cr.P.C beingaggrieved by the judgment passed by Special and Additional Sessions Judge,Dhar in Criminal Appeal No.339/2015 dated 24.10.2017, whereby, court belowhas affirmed the judgment passed by JMFC, Dhar in Criminal CaseNo.613/2011 dated 31.07.2015 convicting the petitioner under section 323 and 325 of IPC and sentence of period of 4 months and 1 year SI with fine ofRs.500-500/-.
Page 1 of 2
Counsel for petitioners submits that the applicant has already undergonejail sentence of about one month and the incident had taken place in the year2011. The petitioners were on bail during trial, appeal and revision and did notmisuse the liberty. They maintained good record and relation with thecomplainant. No purpose would be served in sending the petitioners in jail aftersuch long period. Therefore, the petitioners may be sentenced to the periodalready undergone and fine amount may be increased which may be directed tobe paid to the complainant.
Counsel for State do not dispute the aforesaid facts.
After hearing learned counsel for parties and taking into consideration theshort jail sentence of the petitioner, the period already undergone by him and thefact that the offence under which the petitioners has been convicted, nominimum jail sentence is prescribed, I am of the opinion that a case is made outfor sentencing the petitioners to the period already undergone with enhancementof fine amount. Further the incident had taken place in the year 2011 and thepetitioners have maintained good record and did not misuse the liberty. Nopurpose would be served in sending the applicant in jail after such long period. Therefore, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction is maintained. Thejail sentence of the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone bythem and the fine amount is enhanced to from Rs.500/- each to Rs.2500/- each.The enhanced amount of total Rs.6000/-shall be paid to the complainant by theTrial Court. The petitioners shall deposit the enhanced amount within theperiod of two months from today. The bail bonds of the petitioners shall bedischarged after deposit of the fine amount. In case if the petitioners fails to deposit the fine amount within the aforesaid period, the applicant shall undergothe remaining jail sentence as per the order of appellate court.
Sourabh
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)JUDGE
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…