IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA th ON THE 11 OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1529 of 2014 BETWEEN:-

DHIRAPSINGH S/O MOTILAL YADAV, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O: VILLAGE GINDORHAT P.S. SUTHALIYA, DISTRICT RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI RAVINDRA SINGH PARMAR - ADVOCATE)

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER THRU. P.S. SUTHALIYA, DISTRICT RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (BY SHRI MUKESH SHARMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

This revision coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

The applicant has preferred this criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “Cr.P.C.”) against the impugned judgment dated 12.12.2014 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Biaora, District Rajgarh (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.02/2012, whereby the judgment dated 28.11.2011 passed by the JMFC, Biaora, District Rajgarh in Criminal Case No.43/2009 has been upheld, under Section 325 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that one year prior to the incident, Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHILPA complainant Ramchandra's goat had entered into the field of the applicant/accused Dhirapsingh. On 11.01.2009, in the morning, complainant Ramchandra was in his house, at that time, applicant/accused came there and started abusing him in filthy language and caused injuries to him by means of wooden stick on both the hands and thighs, due to which complainant sustained injuries. Thereafter, an FIR has been registered at Police Station Suthaliya, District Rajgarh. The MLC of the complainant was conducted by the Dr. V.K.

Verma (PW-4).

3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the applicant before the JMFC, Biaora, who has framed the charges under Section 294, 325, 506(2) of IPC against the petitioner. The applicant abjured his guilt and took a plea that he has been falsely implicated in this matter. The Trial Court after considering the submissions advanced by both the parties and after scrutinizing the entire evidence available on record, convicted the present applicant for the offence under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced him two years R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/-, with usual default stipulation. Being aggrieved by the conviction, applicant has preferred a criminal appeal before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Biaora, District Rajgarh, but the same has also been dismissed by affirming the judgment and sentence passed by the trial Court.

Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below, applicant has preferred this criminal revision before this Court by stating that judgment passed by both the Courts below are contrary to the law and fact available on record. Both the Courts below have committed error in not considering the fact that prosecution witnesses Rodji (PW-3), Lalita Bai (PW-5) and Preetam (PW-6) had not supported the case of the prosecution and Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHILPA they have been turned hostile. Dr. V.K. Verma also admits that due to the fell down such fracture may be caused to the victim. Prosecution has filed to prove the x-ray report as per the requirement of legal evidence, hence, he prays that revision be allowed and petitioner be acquitted from all the charges.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the criminal revision and prayed for its rejection by submitting that both the Courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant after due appreciation of evidence available on record. Hence, no interference is required.

6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

7. In order to appreciate the merit of the rival submissions, in its true perspective, it is necessary to advert to medical evidence available on record. Dr. V.K. Verma (PW-4), who has c