SUNDARSINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

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 02.08.2013 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar in Criminal Appeal No.21/2013, whereby the petitioners were convicted for offence under Section 294 of IPC and sentenced to undergo two month R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- and u/S.325/34 of the IPC sentenced to undergo one years R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/- and u/S.427 of the IPC and sentence to undergo six months with fine of Rs.1000/-in default of payment of fine they were to further undergo 15 months R.I.

(2.) BRIEF facts necessary for elucidation are that the complainant Babulal was the member of Gram Panchayat and on the date of incident i.e.07.02.2011 he went to visit the road which was constructed under the Rojgar Guarantee Yojana. The petitioners, who were also the members of the Gram Panchayat, abused the complainant Babulal in filthy language and asked him as to why he did not come when called and assaulted him, due to which complainant Babulal received injuries on the face and nose. The petitioners threatened to the complainant to kill him and destroy his motorcycle also. The FIR was lodged at police Station Dhar at Crime No.108/2011. Upon the complaint of the complainant a case was registered against the petitioners. After framing of charge and recording of evidence, petitioners were convicted and the conviction has been upheld by the Appellate Court, however, it reduced the sentence from two years to one year for offence under Sections 325 read with 34 of the IPC and for offence under Section 427 of the IPC only fine of Rs.1000/- as been imposed and for offence under Section 294 of the IPC only fine of Rs.500/- has been imposed as stated above. Being aggrieved, however, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent/State has opposed the submissions of the Counsel for the petitioners and stated that there is concurrent finding against the petitioners and the judgment of the Appellate Court is in accordance with law and does not require any interference and the revision filed by the petitioners be dismissed.