IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH ON THE 24^th OF FEBRUARY, 2026 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1429 of 2007 DEVIDAS AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Shailendra Kumar Gangrade - Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Shankar Prashad Singh - Advocate for the complainant.

Shri Pankaj Raj - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

ORDER Record is received.

This revision was admitted on 21.09.2007.

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

2. This revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 03.07.2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 255/2005 (State of M.P., Police Station Bhainsdehi, District Betul vs. Janardan and others) by the learned Sessions Judge, District Betul.

3. By the aforesaid judgment dated 03.07.2007, the learned appellate Court acquitted co‑accused Janardan of the charge under Section 307 IPC. However, the learned appellate Court convicted accused Devidas for offences under Sections 326 and 324 IPC, instead of Section 307 IPC.

4. Further, Appellant No. 1 – Devidas was convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, with the stipulated default sentence. Likewise, Appellant No. 2 – Nitin was convicted under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 4 years with a fine of Rs.3,000/-, with the corresponding default stipulation.

5. The application for suspension of sentence on behalf of Appellant No.1 (Devidas S/o Janardhan Kunbi) was allowed on 20.07.2007, and the application filed on behalf of Appellant No.2–

(Nitin S/o Janardhan Kunbi) was allowed on 21.07.2007.

6. As per Paragraph 30 of the judgment passed by the appellate Court, the appellants/accused Nitin and Devidas had remained in judicial custody from 28.06.2004 to 21.09.2004. After the pronouncement of the appellate judgment, it is evident that both accused persons were again taken into custody, and their applications for suspension of sentence were subsequently allowed on the dates mentioned above.

7. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants that he is not pressing his appeal against the conviction, but the sentence may be reduced to the period of custody already undergone by the appellants.

8. Shri Pankaj Raj, 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 as appellate Court.

10. Considered the statements of PW-1 Ramesh (Kotwar), PW-2 Sukhdev (Head Constable), PW-3 Kishor (son of the injured), PW-4 Bhaskarrav, relating to the incident dated 27.05.2004, wherein the injured is Bhaskarrav @ Gulab Rao. PW‑5 Sumit has been declared hostile by the prosecution, PW‑6 S.L. Nagpur (A.S.I.), PW‑7 Sukharam has also turned hostile, PW‑8 Ajay Mishra (S.I.), PW‑9 A.Q. Ali, and PW‑10 Dr. Gyaneshwar.

11. The Court has also perused the statements of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On the basis of the evidence available on record, it is evident that the judgment of conviction is well justified. Accordingly, the revision against conviction stands dismissed.

12. It is seen in this case that the statements of compromise of the appellants/accused persons, namely Devidas and Nitin, were recorded on 23.02.2026, and the report thereof has been received from the Registrar (J‑II).

13. It is further seen that the statements of the complainant Kishore Gulabrao Mhala and Shankarao Gulabrao (elder son of the deceased Bhaskarrav @ Gulabrao) were also recorded, wherein they stated that the injured had expired and that they do not wish to prosecute the case any further, having voluntarily entered into a compromise without any pressure.

14. The identity of all the parties was duly verified upon production of their respective identity proofs. It is also recorded that the Registrar (J‑II) has opined that the compromise is genuine and voluntary.

15. Taking all