IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH

th

ON THE 25 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3673 of 2025 SANJIV Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Sunil Mishra - Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Mayur Gulati - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

ORDER Applicant Sanjiv is present in person and he is identified by his counsel.

This revision was admitted on 06.10.2025.

Record is received.

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, matter is finally heard.

2. This revision has been filed by applicant being aggrieved of the judgement dated 28.05.2025, passed in CRA No.10/2022 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Niwadi, District Tikamgarh.

3.It is evident that vide judgment dated 04.12.2021 passed in R.C.T.

No. 100552/2015 (State of M.P., Police Station Orcha, Niwadi vs. Sanjiv), the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Orcha, District Tikamgarh, acquitted the accused/applicant from the charges under Sections 294 and 506 II of IPC. Howeve, convicted the accused for the offence under Section 325 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years with a fine of Rs.2,000/‑. He was further convicted for the offence under Section 342 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/‑, along with the default stipulations

4. On appeal, vide judgment dated 28.05.2025 passed in CRA No.

10/2022 (Sanjiv vs. State of M.P., Police Station Orcha, Niwadi), the First Additional Sessions Judge, Niwadi, District Tikamgarh, affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

5. After the judgment of the appellate Court, the applicant was sent to jail for undergoing the sentence. Thereafter, suspension of sentence was granted to the applicant by this Court on 06.10.2025.

6. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.09.2015, the niece of the accused called the complainant Anand, and when he reached there, the applicant along with one co-accused (juvenile ‘A’) took him to their house and assaulted him with a 'lathi', causing injuries. Thereafter, another person intervened and rescued the complainant.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that although revision is filed against the conviction and sentence, he is not pressing his revision against the conviction, but the sentence may be reduced to the period of custody already undergone by the applicant.

8. Ms. Mayur Gulati, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has no objection if the conviction of the applicant is maintained and sentence is reduced.

9. Perused of the record of trial Court as well as appellate Court.

10. Considered the statements of PW‑1 Anand Ahirwar (complainant), PW‑2 Deepak Ahirwar who turned hostile, PW‑3 Rekha Ahirwar, PW‑4 Banmali Ahirwar, and PW‑5 Dr. Ramesh Arya, who stated that the injured had a cut and lacerated wound on the right hand and left knee, along with swelling on the right hand, right shoulder, and head. The injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object. Injuries No. 1 and 2 were simple in nature, and X‑ray examination was advised.

11. Statements of PW‑6 Mahendra Gautam (ASI), PW‑7 Leeladhar Tiwari (ASI), and PW‑8 Dr. S. Agrawal were also considered, who stated that the injured Anand had a fracture in the right elbow and as well as the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. On the basis of the evidence available on record, it is seen that the judgment of conviction is well justified. Therefore, the revision against conviction is rejected.

12. In the considered view of this Court, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as narrated hereinabove, the sentence deserves to be reduced. Accordingly, the sentence is altered and modified to the extent already undergone by the applicant. Further, the fine imposed under Section 325 of the IPC is enhanced from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.10,000/. The amount if deposited previously shall be adjusted. The additional amount shall be deposi