KISHAN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mungaoli to the Court of Sessions Jugge Guna.

(2.) THE petitioners were convicted for the offences under sections 294 and 506 (Later Part) of I.P.C. and were sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500/ - each and R.I. for one year. But on appeal, petitioner No.2 Mahendra Prasad was acquitted of the charge under section 506 (Later Part) of I.P.C., whereas, the conviction of petitioner No.2 Kishan alias Krishna Kumar under the above section was upheld. The conviction of petitioners under section 294, I.P.C., was maintained, but their sentences were modified. Petitioner No.2 Mahendra Prasad was instead directed to submit a surety in the sum of Rs. 2,000/ - with his personal bond, to be of good behaviour for a period of two years and on the breach, he was required to present himself for undergoing the sentence. As regards petitioner No. 1 Kishan his sentence for the offence under section 506 (Later Part), IPC, was modified and instead of the sentence of R.I. for one year, he was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - or in default to undergo six months' S.I. The sentence of fine of Rs. 500/ - under section 294, I.P.C., was found to be reasonable and was maintained.

(3.) AFTER the investigation the Police had filed the challan. At the trial, the prosecution examined complainant H.C. Mishra (PW 1), who has lodged the report with the Police, and PW 2 Mohammad Israr and Ajay Shankar (PW 3) as eye -witnesses. The Investigating Officer Narendra Singh was examined as PW 4. The witness of the prosecution Mohammad Israr (PW 2) stated in paragraph 1 of his statement that the In -charge Principal PW 1 H.C. Mishra was drunk at that time and was abusing the petitioners. He had also demanded the money from them for taking more liquor, but they did not accept his demand. The testimony of the witness that PW 1 was under the effect of liquor intoxication and was abusing the petitioners has gone unchallenged. The witness also stated that PW 1 had demanded money from the petitioners for taking liquor. Curiously, about the allegations against the petitioners, the witness has not stated a word, yet the witness was not declared hostile and the prosecution, therefore, seeks to rely on his version.