DEVI SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w S.401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.06.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kukshi in Criminal Appeal No.182/2012, whereby the petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 325 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo one year R.I. with fine of Rs.2000/- in default of payment of fine he was to further undergo one month R.I.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for elucidation are that on 15.06.2010 the complainant Jakir Khan PW.5 lodged a report at police station Tanda that he and Narendra PW.1 was talking in front of Malviya Pan Shop at 7:45 p.m. at the bus stand when Shubham Travels Bus which was going from Kukshi to Indore reached there, started quarreling with the bus driver, from Ringnod, who getting annoyed, abandoned the bus and fled from the spot. The petitioner who was the driver of the another bus2 asked to the complainant to start the other bus which was standing in front of the same shop, the complainant refused to do so and as a result petitioner assaulted the complainant by kicks and fists and abused him in filthy language due to which complainant sustained fracture of left leg. Upon the complaint of the complainant case was registered against the petitioner. After framing of charge and recording of evidence, petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court and the same upheld by the Appellate Court as stated above, hence the present revision.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that present petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter. Counsel stated that both the Courts below have erred in convicting the accused petitioner, there was not sufficient evidence on record to sustain the conviction. Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the conviction is contrary to the principles of law. The Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence and the fact that there are material omissions and contradictions in the testimony of the material prosecution witnesses. Both the Courts below had failed to consider the fact that Narendra P.W.1, Anil Kumar P.W.2, Balkrishna P.W.6 and Nilesh P.W.7 who were eye witnesses had turned hostile in Court and have not supported the prosecution case. Moreover, the quarrel developed all of a sudden due to a petty matter like shifting the bus from the road. Similarly, doctor Shoukat Ali, P.W.3 the medical officer had found that there are only three contusions and a fracture on the radius bone of his wrist. Thus, the prosecution has been unable to prove the offence under Section 325 of the IPC. Counsel also stated that the petitioner has undergone custodial sentence of one month 02 months. Counsel prayed that the revision deserves to be allowed and the judgment of conviction deserves to be setaside. In alternate Counsel has prayed that if the Court is satisfied regarding the conviction the custodial sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.