Lalman Kol vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Both the parties have agreed to argue this revision finally at motion stage. Thus, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, this revision

is heard finally.

The applicant has filed this criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the JMFC,

Satna in Criminal Case No.3602269/2016, vide judgment dated 06.11.2017, whereby the applicant stands convicted for the offence punishable under

Section 325 of IPC and sentence to undergo RI for six months and fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has to undergo RI for one

month additionally. Â

The applicant preferred an appeal being aggrieved by the judgement and sentence dated 06.11.2017. The learned VIIth Additional Sessions Judge,

Satna registered the case as Criminal Appeal No.257/2017, vide judgment dated 27.05.2019 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and

sentence passed by the JMFC, Satna.

Being aggrieved by the judgments of both the courts below, the applicant has preferred this criminal revision on the ground that the learned both the

courts below have committed patent perversity in appreciating the evidence. The prosecution also failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Learned both the courts below did not extend benefit of doubt to the applicant. The injured witnesses and other witnesses are having material

contradiction in their statements. Their  statements are not trustworthy. Dr. Gupta has not been examined to substantiate his opinion on conducting

the x-ray of the injured. Learned   courts below did not appreciate the evidence in their proper perspective  and prays to set aside the conviction

and sentence and acquit the  applicant of the charges. Â

Learned Penal lawyer opposes this revision and supported the  judgments of both the courts below and contended that both the courts  below have

appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and have not  committed any error in appreciation of evidence and prayed to dismiss  this revision.

After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, I have perused  the records of both the courts below. The applicant has been convicted  for the

offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced to  undergo the sentence as mentioned above. The applicant preferred an  appeal

against the conviction and sentence. The appeal was dismissed and  conviction was upheld vide judgment dated 27.05.2019.   As per Section 393

of Cr.P.C., the conviction and sentence upheld by  the appellate court shall be final. This preposition of law indicates that  the revisional court

while exercising the revisional jurisdiction is having a  limited scope for appreciation of evidence. If there is any miscarriage of  justice or gross

error or perversity found, the revisional court can invoke  the revisional powers to interfere in the conviction and sentence passed by  the trial

court.

 This court perused the statements of witnesses recorded before  the trial court. PW-1, Raj Kumar Kol, who is victim stated that there has  been

a quarrel between him and his   wife. Meanwhile, the applicant came  there and started abusing with filthy words and started beating him  with

fists and kicks. This witness sustained injuries on his hands and  shoulder. He shouted for help. After hearing the noise, Lalli Kol came there  to

save this witness, then the applicant fled away from the place of  incident. This witness lodged the report, Ex. P-1 at Police Station Civil Lines.

After perusal of the cross examination of this witness. This  witness again reiterated the same things, as stated in his chief. He also  admitted that

the applicant is the son of his maternal uncle. The victim  does not have any previous dispute with him. Â

PW-2, Lalli Kol also stated that the applicant was abusing his brother PW-1 and beat him by fists and kicks. This witness stated that the applicant also

beat the victim by stick. In the same way, PW-4, Dr. S.K. Agrawal found the several injuries on the person of victim and found the fracture of

scapular bone. Â

Considering all these witnesses, this court is of the view that both the courts below have not committed any error in convicting the applicant under

Section 325 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the son of his maternal uncle having no criminal past. The injured was quarrelling and

beating his wife in drunken stage. The applicant got annoyed and committed the offence. Â

Considered the arguments and perused the statements of witnesses.

No doubt that the applicant belongs to the same family of the victim and living in the next door house of the victim. Considering this fact, this court

deems fit that the sentence imposed on the applicant may be reduced to three months RI and fine may be enhanced from Rs.1000/- to Rs.2000/-.

This revision is partly allowed and conviction passed by both the courts below is upheld and sentence passed by the trial court and affirmed by the

appellate court is hereby modified. It is reduced from six months RI to three months RI enhancing the fine from Rs.1000/- to Rs.2000/- with the same

default stipulation. This revision is disposed of with the aforesaid modification.

No order as to cost.

Records of the trial courts be sent back.

A copy of this order be sent to the trial court for further necessary action.