Ramkali Ahirwar vs State of Madhya Pradesh

The applicant has filed this revision being aggrieved by judgment dated 16.01.2019 passed by 1st Additional Session Judge, Jatara, District Tikamgarh in Criminal Appeal No.27/2017 whereby conviction passed by Court of JMFC, Jatara, District Tikamgarh under Section 323 of IPC has been confirmed and sentenced of 3 months R.I. has been set aside and fine amount increased from Rs.500/- to Rs.1,000/- and conviction under Section 324 of IPC has been confirmed and sentence i.e. R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs.1,000/- has also been confirmed.

Facts giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that charge sheet filed against the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC. Learned JMFC Court after recording the evidence and having heard both the parties, passed a judgment on 29.04.2017 and convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and sentence to undergo R.I. for three months with fine of Rs.500/-and Section 324 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default stipulation.

The applicant being aggrieved by conviction and sentence passed by judgment dated 29.04.2017 preferred an appeal, registered as Criminal Appeal No.27/2017. Learned appellate Court, after hearing both the parties, delivered a judgment on 16.01.2019 and confirmed the conviction passed under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC. Sentence passed under Section 323 of IPC for a period of three months has been set aside by increasing the fine amount from Rs.500/- to Rs.1,000/-, with default stipulation and the conviction and sentence passed under Section 324 of IPC has been confirmed by the appellate Court.

Being aggrieved by judgment dated 16.01.2019, applicant preferred this criminal revision on the ground that victim Ramkali is having only simple injury and Kalpana is also having simple injury, learned appellate Court passed inproportionate sentence. None of the eye witnesses supported the evidence. There is much contradictions in the statement of victim. Learned Court has grossly erred in appreciation of evidence and also raised question of proportionality of the sentence.

Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State has submitted that learned trial Court as well as appellate Court have properly appreciated the evidence and convicted the applicant and supported the judgment of the appellate Court as well as trial Court.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties. As per the prosecution case, victim Rekha (PW-1) and accused are next door neighbours. There was a dispute between them. On the date of incidence, daughter of Rekha was taking bath, her clothes were lying there, son of the accused jumped over her clothes. On account of which, Rekha raised an objection, as a result of which, dispute arose between the parties. Accused picked sickle and inflicted injuries to Rekha on her head and other portion of body. Kalpana (PW-2) came to save her mother, she also sustained injuries in the finger. Gita (PW-3), Swati (PW-4) and Poonam (PW-7) have also reached on the spot and settled the matter.

Gita (PW-3), Swati (PW-4) and Poonam (PW-7) have turned hostile before trial Court and not supported the case of prosecution. Rekha (PW-1) has stated against the accused, her daughter also supported her version. They both are injured persons. Dr. Suresh Sharma (PW-5) examined Kalpana and found one incised wound on her forehead and one lacerated wound was found on left arm and abrasion on thumb of left hand, little finger, index finger and in the right hand.

This Court has a limited jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. On the basis of evidence, adduced before trial Court. This Court does not find any gross injustice to interfere in the conviction held by trial Court, but as far as sentence is concerned, looking to the gravity of dispute, trial Court imposed the sentence of 6 months R.I. for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, accused is in jail. 15 days have been undergone and considering the gravity of offence that parties are next door neighbour dispute arose on petty metters. There was a free fight between the victim and accused. This Court considers that this sentence should be converted into the sentence which has already been undergone. On the point of sentence, this revision is partly allowed. Sentence passed for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC for the period of 6 months R.I. converted into the sentence already undergone. There is no need to interfere in the fine amount. Hence, conviction passed under Section 323 and sentence passed under Section 323 shall remain same and conviction under Section 324 shall remain same. But, sentence of imprisonment passed in this Section is converted into the sentence already undergone along with fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default stipulation as indicated by trial Court.

In view of the aforesaid direction, this revision petition is disposed of.

As stated by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is in jail. Hence, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other criminal case.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court.