Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 601
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL, J
Anil Kumar Verma – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
CRR 2034/2024
,Advocate General
The court can modify sentences based on the offender's background and time served, ensuring proportionality in sentencing.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 397 and 401 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 325 and 325/34 - Criminal revision challenging conviction and sentence - Applicants convicted for causing grievous hurt - The applicants did not contest their conviction but sought reduction of sentence due to being first offenders and time served - The court affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence from 1 year RI to the period already undergone, enhancing the fine from Rs.1000/- to Rs.4000/- to be paid as compensation to the injured. (Paras 6, 12, 13)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Revision - The court has the power to modify sentences in light of the circumstances, including the nature of the offence and the offender's background. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The applicants were convicted for assaulting Govind Soni, causing grievous injuries with wood-sticks during an altercation on 05.11.2012. The incident was corroborated by witnesses and medical evidence. The applicants were first offenders and had served over 2 months in jail.
Findings of Court:
The conviction was upheld as the evidence was strong, but the sentence was modified to reflect the time already served and the applicants' status as first offenders.
Issues: The main issue was whether the sentence should be reduced given the applicants' status as first offenders and the time already served.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sentence could be modified based on the applicants' first offender status and the time they had already spent in incarceration, emphasizing the need for proportionality in sentencing.
Result: Revision allowed in part; sentence reduced to the period already undergone.
This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C has been preferred by the applicants assailing the appeal judgment dated 23.04.2024, passed by the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Headquarter Waidhan, District Singrauli in Criminal Appeal No.48/2023 (Anil Kumar Verma and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh), whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.07.2023, passed by the JMFC, Waidhan, District Singrauli in RCT No.505251/2012 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Anil Kumar Verma and Others) convicting the applicants for commission of offence under Section 325 and 325/34 of IPC has been affirmed.
2.As per prosecution story, on 05.11.2012, at around 9:00 A.M., Govind Soni PW2, resident of Village Churki was being abused by Anil and his brother Rajneesh Kumar @ Bhole, when he asked them not to utter abusive words relating to mother and sister, they both assaulted him by means of wood-sticks causing injuries on his right hand and left hand.
In the meantime, Bablu @ Ram Surat Yadav and Makhnu Yadav also reached there and abused and caused voluntary hurt to him causing injuries on his right hand, left hand and right side of head. Matter was pacified by Vinod Kumar Soni (PW4). They had threatened to do death also. On the basis of narration given by Govind Soni PW2, FIR Exhibit P/2 was taken down by the Head Constable Rajbhan. In the course of investigation, Sub Inspector B.N. Singh Chouhan (PW6) prepared Site Map (Exhibit P/3). He recorded the statements of injured and witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Arrested the applicants and prepared the arrest memos. After investigation, charge sheet was filed. 3.Learned trial Court framed the charges against the applicants/accused for commission of offence under Section 294, 325, 325/34, 506 – II of IPC. The applicants/accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Learned trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties convicted the applicant/accused Anil Kumar Verma for commission of offence under Section 325 of IPC and rest of the accused for commission of offence under Section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced as mentioned herein above.
4.In order to prove its case, prosecution examined six witnesses Shyamacharan Soni PW1, Govind Soni PW2, Dr. Rahul Singh PW3, Vinod Kumar Soni PW4, Santram Saket PW5 and Sub Inspector B.N
Singh Chouhan PW6. Applicants/accused did not examine any witness in their defence.
5.Applicants challenged the judgement of conviction and order of sentence by preferring the appeal, but the learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Waidhan, District Singrauli dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction for commission of offence under Section 325 and 325/34 of IPC. Hence, this revision. 6.At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that he does not want to challenge the applicants’ conviction under Section 325 and 325/34 of IPC. Applicants are in jail since 23.04.2024. They are first offender. They have already suffered about more than 2 month and 10 days incarceration. Therefore, it is prayed that applicants may be released by reducing the jail sentence to the period already undergone by them so far.
7.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the findings recorded by the Courts below, but has fairly admitted that applicants are the first offenders. They have already suffered more than 2 months and 10 days jail sentence. Therefore, he has no objection if jail sentence of the applicants is reduced to the period already undergone by them.
8.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9.Injured Govind Soni PW2 in his evidence has deposed that he knew applicants/accused well. On 05.11.2012, at around 8:00 – 9:00 A.M. accused Anil and his brother Rajneesh Kumar @ Bhole had abused him.
When he had asked them not to abuse, they assaulted him by means of wood-sticks. He had sustained injuries on his head and right and left hand. Bablu @ Ram Surat Yadav an
