Madhya Pradesh High CourtHarchhat Kol & Ors. vs The State Of M.P on 6 November, 2012Criminal Revision No. 1491 of 2002
06/11/2012
         Shri G.S.Baghel, Advocate for the petitioners.
         Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for withdrawal
of the petition on behalf of appellant no.3 Smt Ujjiyari Bai.Prayer is allowed.The petitioners preferred this revision under Section 397
read withSection 401of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the
judgment dated 26/11/2002 passed by Additional District
Judge, Katni, in Criminal Appeal No.45/2002, arising out of the
judgment dated 22/03/2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Katni in Criminal Case No.505/2001, whereby the
petitioner nos. 1 & 2 have been convicted and sentenced as
under:-Petitioners              Provision             Sentence
     Harchhat (No.1)          u/s 323/34IPCR.I. for 3 months
           &                                    with fine of Rs.250,
     Dant @ Daniya                              in lieu of default,
         (No.2)                                 R.I. for one month,
                                                each.2.       According to prosecution, on 18/12/1990 at about 8.00
am,      complainant    went      to   his   field   and   saw   that
applicants/accused Harchhat and Dani @ Daniya were
ploughing his field. Complainant Premlal questioned them that
why they were ploughing his field. The accused persons came
there, abused him and gave him a blow by lathi. As a result of
 blow by lathi, the complainant sustained injuries on various
parts of his body.3.    Learned counsel for the petitioners did not challenge
the finding of conviction of the petitioners but confined his
arguments to the point of sentence only.4.    Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted
that the petitioners had already suffered the jail sentence of
35 days. Therefore, their case be considered sympathetically
and their sentence should be reduced to the period already
undergone in jail.5.    Learned counsel for the State does not oppose the
prayer of the petitioners' counsel.6.    It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction cannot
embark upon re-appreciation of evidence unless the finding of
fact,on the face of it, is illegal and perverse. The appellate
judgment affirming the finding of guilt does not suffer from any
error of jurisdiction. Both the Courts below have not committed
any mistake in believing the statements of prosecution
witnesses    further   corroborated   by   medical    evidence.
Therefore, the petitioners are rightly convicted underSection
323/34of IPC.7.    With regard to sentence, admittedly the petitioners
remained in jail for a period of 35 days. No previous criminal
conduct of the petitioners had been proved by the prosecution
therefore it appears that they are first offender. Keeping in
view the facts and circumstances of this case and
submissions made by the parties especially the fact that the
         incident is of 18/12/1990, it would not be in the interest of
        justice to send the petitioners back to jail to serve the
        remaining part of the sentence after lapse of 22 years.8.    Consequently, this criminal revision is allowed. The
        conviction of the petitioner Nos.1 & 2 passed by the Courts
        below is hereby maintained, but the sentence is reduced to
        the period already undergone by them.9.     With the aforesaid directions, revision petition stands
        disposed of.10.   A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for
        information and compliance.(SMT.VIMLA JAIN)
                                                JUDGE

manju