Back
2007 Supreme(MP) 434
H.M. Gupta, J.
Manohar Dass v. State of M.P. and others
Criminal Revision No. 185 of 2001 (G); Decided on 19.4.2007.
R.K. Sharma for applicant; M. Bharadwaj, Government Advocate for State; T.C. Bansal for respondents No.2 and 3.
Headnote:(1) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 397/401 -- power of revision under -can be exercised suo motu -- High Court -- attention can be drawn by filing revision to the improper finding, sentence etc. AIR 1973 SC 786 followed. [Para 5]
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 374, 377 and 397/401 -- appeal against conviction by accused -- High Court may enhance sentence even if no appeal against sentence is filed -- it can exercise revisional powers. 1990 SCC (Cri) 323 followed. [Para 5]
(3) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 378 -- appeal against acquittal -- High Court has very limited jurisdiction -- interference is also limited in exceptional cases. 1999 Cr L J 16 (SC) followed. [Para 5]
(4) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 377, 401 r/w S. 386 (C) (iii) -- provision under S. 377 -- does not exclude revisional jurisdiction -- provisions under S. 401 r/w S. 386 (c) (iii) are supplemental to S. 377 -- High Court can hear revision for enhancement of sentence. AIR 1976 SC 2205 followed. [Para 6]
(5) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 326/34 -- accused not carrying sharp edged weapon -- conviction under not justified. [Para 7]
(6) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 325, 323 and 326/34 -- jail sentence of 11 days duly suffered -- sentence of fine enhanced from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- each. [Paras 7 & 8]
(7) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 357 -- injured persons awarded Rs. 10,000/-,5,000/- and 3,000/-, compensation on realisation of fine amount. [Para 8]
¼1½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973& &/kkjk 397@401& &ds v/khu iqujh{k.k dh ‘kfDr& &Loizsj.kk ls iz;qDr dh tk ldrh gS& &vuqfpr fu"d"kZ] naMkns‘k vkfn dks iqujh{k.k Qkby djds mPp U;k;kydk/;ku vkdf"kZr fd;k tk ldrk gSA , vkb vkj 1973 ,l lh 786 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 5½
¼2½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973& &/kkjk 374] 377 rFkk 397@401& &vfHkqDr }kjk nks"kflf) ds fo#) vihy& &mPp U;k;ky; naMkns‘k esa o`f) dj ldrk gS Hkys gh naMkns‘k ds fo#) vihy Qkby ugha dh xbZ gks& &og iqujh{k.k dh ‘kfDr;k¡ iz;qDr dj ldrk gSA 1990 ,l lh lh ¼fdz-½ 323 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 5½
¼3½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973& &/kkjk 378& &nks"keqfDr ds fo#) vihy& &mPp U;k;ky; dks cgqr lhfer vf/kdkfjrk gS& &vkiokfnd ekeyksa esa gLr{ksi Hkh lhfer gSA 1999 lhvkj ,y ts 16 ¼,l lh½ vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 5½
¼4½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973& &/kkjk 377] 401 lgifBr /kkjk 386 ¼10½& &/kkjk 377 ds v/khu mica/k& &iqujh{k.k dh vf/kdkfjrk dk viotZu ugha gS& &/kkjk 401 lgifBr /kkjk 386 ¼10½ ¼3½ ds v/khu mica/k /kkjk 377 ds vuqiwjd gSa& &mPp U;k;ky; naMkns‘k dh o`f) ds fy, iqujh{k.k lqu ldrk gSA , vkb vkj 1976 ,l lh 2205 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 6½
¼5½ naM lafgrk] 1860& &/kkjk 326@34& &vfHkqDr }kjk rst /kkj okyk vk;q/k ugha ys tk;k tkuk& &nks"kflf) U;k;kuqer ughaA ¼iSjk 7½
¼6½ naM lafgrk] 1860& &/kkjk 325] 323 rFkk 326@34& &11 fnu dk tsy dk naMkns‘k lE;d~ :i ls Hkksxk x;k& &tqekZus dk naMkns‘k izR;sd ij # 4]000@& ls #- 10]000@& rd c<+k;k x;kA ¼iSjk 7 ,oa 8½
¼7½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973& &/kkjk 357& &tqekZus dh jde dh olwyh gksus ij {kfrxzLr O;fDr;ksa dks # 10]000@&] 5]000@& rFkk 3]000@& vf/kfu.khZr fd, x,A ¼iSjk 8½
1. The instant revision is for impugning the judgment dated 21.3.2001 passed by Sessions Judge, Guna in Criminal Appeal No. 8/01, whereby the learned Judge has affirmed the conviction of the respondents No.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under sections 326/149, 325/149 and 323/149 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aron Camp Guna, in Criminal Case No. 398/99 vide judgment dated 27.12.2000. Vide the aforesaid judgment dated 27.12.2000, the learned Magistrate had imposed rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for the offence punishable under section 326/149 of IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 1 year for the offence punishable under section 325/149 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 6 months under section 323/149 with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, 1,000/- and 500/respectively to each of the respondents No.2 and 3. While modifying the sentence vide impugned judgment, the learned Judge imposed the jail sentence to the extent already undergone by the respondents No.2 and 3 i.e. for a period of 11 days and extended the fine sentence of Rs. 500/- in total and in place of total amount of fine of Rs. 3,500/-; Rs. 4,000/- has been imposed on each of the respondents No.2 and 3.
2. Shri Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant has drawn attention on the statements of Dr. K.K. Shrivastava (PW 1), Dr. Seetaram Raghuwanshi (PW 12) and has submitted that injured Mohandas sustained six injuries, injured Manohardas sustained 14 injuries and injured Balramdas sustained 6 injuries. Out of these injuries, fracture was detected in left ulna of Balramdas, right radius and third rib of Manohardas. Thus, total 26 injuries were inflicted by the respondents No. 2 and 3 out of which 3 injuries were grievous in nature. In view of this, the jail sentence is very meagre and deserves to be enhanced. He has further submitted that the revision is maintainable in view of the fact that under section 397 of CrPC correctness of the sentence can also be looked into by this Court. In support he has drawn attention on a judgment of the apex Court in Pratap v. State of U.P. [AIR 1973 SC 786].
3. Shri Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the State has submitted that State has not preferred any appeal in this case for enhancement of the sentence.
4. Shri Bansal, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 has submitted that for the purpose of enhancement only State has a right to file an appeal as provided under section 377 of CrPC and no appeal has been preferred by the State. In case such appeal is preferred, then under sub-section (3) of section 377 of CrPC the respondents No.2 and 3 are entitled to plead for their acquittal or for reduction of sentence. The complainant can file a revision against acquittal but not for the enhancement of the sentence. In support, Shri Bansal has drawn attention on the judgment of apex Court in Vimal Singh v. Khuman Singh and another [1999 CrLJ 16] and Sahab Singh and others v. State of Haryana [1990 SCC (Cri) 323].
5. As observed by the apex Court in the case of Pratap (supra) the power of revision is one which the High Court can exercise suo motu and all that a person filing a revision petition under that section does is to draw the Court's attention to an illegal, improper or incorrect finding, sentence or order of a subordinate Court. Such powers are not affected by the fact that the revision petition is filed by a private person and not by the Government. This observation of the apex Court is complete reply of the contention of Shri Bansal with this regard. In the judgment of Sahab Singh (supra) the apex Court has observed that the High Court is competent to enhance sentence in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction in an appeal against conviction even if no appeal against sentence is filed by the State. In the case of Virnal Singh (supra) it is observed by the apex Court that in an appeal against acquittal by the State High Court is having very limited jurisdiction. Interference is limited to ex
