IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 27 OF JANUARY, 2026 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 936 of 2014 RADHESHYAM Versus RAMKUMAR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ashirwad Dwivedi - Advocate for the petitioner/complainant.

Shri Yogesh Singhal - Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2.

Shri Samar Ghuraiya - DGA for the respondent No.3/State.

ORDER Petitioner/complainant has preferred this criminal revision under Section 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by impugned judgment of acquittal dated 24.07.2012 passed by Sessions Judge, District Bhind in Criminal Appeal No.69/2012, whereby the respondents-accused were acquitted of the charge under Sections 323, 324 of IPC.

As per the prosecution case, on 09.05.2010, at about 5:00 a.m., when the complainant Radheshyam was bringing his wife Satyavati home from the hospital, Ramkumar, Janmejay, and Umesh Dohre met him near the Circuit House and started abusing him due to an old rivalry. When he refused, Ramkumar, Janmejay, and Umesh assaulted him, and Janmejay bit his right arm with his teeth. When Satyavati came to his rescue, the three accused also assaulted her. Vijay Singh and Dev Singh reached on the spot and intervened. On the basis of the report of the incident, Crime No. 317/10 under Sections 323, 324, and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered, and the injured persons were medically examined. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was presented before the Court.

Upon analyzing the evidence produced before the trial court, accused Ramkumar was sentenced to two counts of three months’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹200 each under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Janmejay was sentenced to three months’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹200 under Section 323 and six months’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹500/- under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.

Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused/appellants preferred Criminal Appeal No.69/12 before the Sessions Court. Although the appellate court found the evidence appreciated by the subordinate court to be reliable and properly analyzed, it acquitted accused Ramkumar and upheld the conviction of accused Janmejay under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellate court confirmed the conviction of appellant Janmejay but, considering the sentence of six months’ imprisonment to be harsh, modified the sentence and imposed a fine of ₹4,000/- only. Being dissatisfied, the present appeal has been filed by the complainant Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Appellate Court committed a legal error in reducing the sentence of respondent No.2 Janmejay to a fine only, despite holding that the offence under Section 324 IPC was duly proved. It is contended that the evidence of injured witnesses and medical evidence clearly establish the offence, and the leniency shown by the Appellate Court is unjustified. It is prayed that the impugned judgment be modified by enhancing the sentence.

Learned counsel for respondents as well as counsel for the State opposed the present petition and submitted that the Appellate Court has exercised its discretion judiciously while considering the age and circumstances of the respondent. It is argued that no interference is warranted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Upon perusal of the record and considering the submissions of both sides, this Court finds that the conviction of respondent No.2 Janmejay under Section 324 IPC has attained finality. The Appellate Court itself held the prosecution evidence to be reliable and trustworthy. However, considering the nature of injury caused by biting the injured on his arm, the role attributed to respondent No.2, and the fact that the offence under Section 324 IPC is of a serious nature, this Court is of the considered opinion that imposition of a fine of only ₹4,000/- is inadequate and does not meet t