Sanman Singh and Dharmendra vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Brij Kishore Dube, J.—Vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.9.2005 passed in Criminal Case No. 655/98 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Seondha, District Datia, the petitioner No. 1 herein/accused, Sanman Singh was convicted under Sections 325 /34 and 323 /34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 300/- and two months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/- respectively, while petitioner No. 2 herein/accused, Dharmendra was convicted under Sections 325 and 323 /34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 300/- and two months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/- respectively. Being aggrieved thereof, an appeal was preferred by the petitioners. The Appellate Court vide the impugned judgment dated 13.4.2006 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 50/2005 affirmed the judgment of conviction of petitioner No. 1 herein/accused Sanman Singh, however, reduced the sentence till rising of the Court with fine of Rs. 2,500/- for the offence punishable under Sections 325 /34 of IPC and sentenced till rising of the Court with fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Sections 323 /34 of IPC. The Appellate Court also affirmed the judgment of conviction of petitioner No. 2 herein/accused Dharmendra, however, reduced the sentence till rising of the Court with fine of Rs. 2,500/- for the offence punishable u/s 325 of IPC and sentenced till rising of the Court with fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Sections 323 /34 of IPC. Against which, this Criminal Revision is preferred by the petitioners under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. The facts of the case have been detailed in the impugned judgment by the learned Courts below, therefore, this Court does not want to repeat the same overall again.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he does not wish to challenge the finding of conviction recorded by the learned Appellate Court as well as the sentence awarded by the learned Appellate Court in respect of petitioner No. 1 Sanman Singh. He further submits that he also does not wish to challenge the finding of conviction recorded by the learned Appellate Court as well as the sentence awarded by the learned Appellate Court in respect of petitioner No. 2 Dharmendra. However, he prays that the petitioner No. 2/herein is a student and, therefore, a direction may be issued to the effect that the conviction recorded in the present case should not affect his future career.

Learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the respondent/State supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissing this petition.

Learned Appellate Court and the learned Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record found guilt of the petitioners. In view of the reasons assigned by the learned Courts below for convicting the petitioners to be trustworthy, this Court does not want to deviate from the same.

As before this Court, the finding of conviction and the order of sentence recorded by the learned Appellate Court against the petitioners have not been challenged by the petitioners, hence, the aforesaid findings stand affirmed.

The petitioner No. 2 is neither in service nor in a profession. It is submitted that he is a student, but there is no evidence to show that he is studying in a particular class or pursuing particular course. In the judgment passed by the Trial Court on 22.9.2005 his age is mentioned as 24 years and by now he is around 32 years, therefore, the prayer cannot be accepted. In the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons given hereinabove, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment that may call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction u/s 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. This revision petition is devoid of any merit and is, therefore, dismissed.