IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH

th

ON THE 13 OF JANUARY, 2026

CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1472 of 2012

ARIF ALI AND OTHERS

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Appearance:

Shri Riaz Mohd. with Shri S. Riyaz - Advocate for the applicants.

Ms. Vibha Pal - Panel Lawyer for the State of M.P.

ORDER this revision against conviction but his limited prayer is that the jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone for the applicants by enhancing the fine amount.

This revision is of the year 2012. It was admitted for final hearing

16.8.2012.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this revision is

heard finally.

The applicant is aggrieved of the judgment dated 26.7.2012 passed by

Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar M.P. in Criminal Appeal No.266 of 2011 arising out of judgment dated 4.8.2011 passed by J.M.F.C., Sagar in Criminal Case No. 3777 of 2007 by which the applicants Arif Ali, Ashik Ali and Jumrat @ Kamrunnisha have been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2-2-2 years and fine of Rs.2000-2000-2000 under Section 498-A of IPC with default stipulation. Rest of the co- accused - Ku. Rubi, Ku. Rajiya, Gudiya @ Tarunam and Smt. Reshma have ben acquitted of the

charges under Section 498-A of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not press

3. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State has no objection the prayer as made by learned counsel for the applicants is allowed.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. On perusal of the record and the statements of the witnesses it is seen that the conviction against the applicants is well justified. Accordingly, revision against conviction is rejected.

6. Regarding quantum of sentence, perused the statements of complainant - Rizwana Begam @ Madina Begam (PW-3) who has stated that the accused demanded dowry and they had also objected to the quality of earlier given articles as dowry and they wanted that the articles should be replaced and the accused used to assault the victim. After delivery of a girl child the father of the victim took her on the strength of a search warrant.

7. PW-6- Dr. Mukund Chaturvedi stated that when he examined the complainant on 26.5.2007 he found abrasion on neck, left leg and on chin.

The abrasions were simple in nature.

8. It is seen that the accused did not remain in custody during trial. The appeal was disposed on 26.7.2012 by learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, M.P. and suspension application for grant of bail was allowed on 16.8.2012 by this High Court. Thus, the applicants remained in jail custody from the date of judgment of the appellant court till the bail was granted by this court.

9. Thus, the applicants are punished with the jail sentence already undergone by them but the fine amount is enhanced from Rs.2000-2000- 2000 to Rs.4000-4000-4000 to be deposited within 30 days from today before the trial court failing which each applicant will have to undergo S.I.

for three months. The fine if any deposited earlier shall be adjusted.

10. With the aforesaid this revision is disposed of.

(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)

JUDGE bks