INDU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19. 02. 1999 passed by Sessions Judge, Gadarwara in Criminal Appeal No. 27/98, arising out of Criminal Case No. 762/95 passed by A. C. J. M. , Gadarwara on 09. 03. 1998, whereby the applicant No. 1 has been convicted under Section 294 and 323 of I. P. C. and sentenced to fine of Rs. 400/-and 300/-respectively and applicant No. 2 has been convicted under Section 323/34 of I. P. C. and sentenced to fine of Rs. 300/ -.

(2.) THE prosecution case in short is that on 03. 11. 1995 at 9:00 p. m. complainant Vijay Kumar Gupta, Assistant Station Master, Gadarwara was going to take dinner at Rajneesh Hotel with his friend Raghvendra Sharma on the scooter. As soon as they reached in front of the hotel the applicants wrongfully restrained them. They caught hold of him, abused filthy languages and caused marpeet by kick and fist on account of which he sustained injuries on his right cheek. Raghvendra Sharma and the Manager of the Prabhu Niwas intervened the matter. The report was lodged on 04. 11. 1999 at 10. 15 a. m. at police station Gadarwara where Crime No. 440/95 under Section 342, 324 and 294 of I. P. C. was registered against the applicants. The spot map was prepared. The complainant was sent for medical examination. One abrasion was found on the left side of cheek. After completing the investigation the charge sheet was filed in the trial Court.

(3.) THE applicants were charged under Section 294 and 323/34 of I. P. C. They denied the guilt and claimed to be tried mainly contending that they have been falsely implicated. Prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses and the accused persons did not examine any witness in defence. After appreciating the evidence the trial Court found them guilty for the offence charged. The applicants preferred criminal appeal No. 27/98 against the judgment, finding and sentence of the trial Court. The appellate Court also found them guilty and modified the sentence. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment the instant revision has been preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of revision.