IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI th ON THE 5 OF DECEMBER, 2024 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4077 of 2024 MUKESH DWIVEDI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Y.M. Tiwari - Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Y.D. Yadav - GA for the State.

ORDER This revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.7.2024 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mandla in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2022 whereby the applicant has been convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for imprisonment till rising of the Court with fine of Rs. 1000/-.

2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 31.8.2016, the complainant, who is the wife of the applicant, lodged a complaint at Police Station Pindrai, District Mandla alleging that on the same date at about 6:30 AM, the present applicant manhandled the complainant, as a result of which her upper tooth got broken and bottom tooth started wiggling. The allegations of demand of dowry were also levelled in the aforesaid complaint against the mother, father and brother of the applicant. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, an offence under Section 498A, 323, 506 Part 2, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA against the applicant, his mother, father and brother vide Crime No. 357 of

2016.

3 . After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons before JMFC, Nainpur, District Mandla, who framed the charges under Sections 498-A, 323, 323/34, 325, 506 Part 2, 309 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused persons.

4. The accused persons and other accused persons abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication.

5. The trial Court on due appraisal of oral and documentary evidence available on record, acquitted the mother, father and brother of the applicant of the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 323/34, 325/34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also acquitted the applicant under Section 498A, 323/34, 506 Part 2, 309 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. However, convicted the applicant under Section 325, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs. 500/- and R.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs. 500/-

respectively with default stipulations.

6 . Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Mandla whereby the Sessions Judge, Mandla modified the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.12.2021 passed by Judicial Magistrate First class, Nainpur, District Mandla and acquitted the applicant of the offence under Section 325 of the IPC and convicted him Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced him for imprisonment till rising of the Court with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation. Assailing the judgment passed by the appellate Court, this revision has been preferred.

7. The counsel for the applicant contends that in the present case, the appellate Court itself arrived at a conclusion that there was contradictions in the testimony of the complainant (PW-1) and her version regarding injury was totally contradictory to the description of the injury given by Dr. Surendra Varkade (PW-6). It is contended that this anomaly, which goes to the root of the prosecution's case, was discussed by the trial Court in Paragraph-13 and also by the appellate Court but both the Courts below have observed that mentioning of injury on the right side of the cheek, right hand and right side of the neck of the complainant was the bonafide human error committed by the Doctor concerned. It is also contended that the appellate Court has further observed that the injury pertaining to teeth was an old injury and the present applicant