IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH ON THE 31stOF OCTOBER, 2025 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4726 of 2025
JITENDRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Yashpal Singh Sisodiya - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Jayesh Yadav appearing on behalf of Advocate General[r-1].
ORDER
1. This criminal revision under section 438 read with section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.09.2025 in criminal appeal No.146/2025 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain (M.P.) affirming the judgment dated 26.07.2025 in RCT No.1961/2019 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain whereby revision petitioner has been convicted under section 325 of the IPC and sentenced to under go 06 months RI with fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation of 15 days imprisonment.
2. The revision petitioner has been convicted for causing voluntary grievous injury to injured Shankarlal PW-1 on 12.07.2019 at about 09:30 AM in front of the house of Shankarlal situated at Nimanwasa, Ujjain regarding which a crime No.753/2019 was registered at Police station Chimanganj Mandi, Ujjain.
3. After trial, the learned trial court has convicted the revision petitioner under sections 325 IPC and sentence to 06 months RI with fine of Rs.20,00/-. In appeal the conviction under section 325 of the IPC was affirmed by learned first appellate Court as mentioned in para-1 of the judgment.
1
4. This revision petition is preferred on the ground of defense of false allegations and injury received by the injured by fall from platform situated at out side the house of the injured and the learned courts below have not considered this aspect. The facts of the case are general in nature and both, the revision petitioner and the injured are neighbors.
5. Heard with the consent of parties at motion stage.
6. Counsel for the respondent/State opposes the revision petition.
7. Perused the record.
8. The testimony of PW-1 and Dr. Sanjay Rana PW-3 is supported with MLC Ex.P/3 and radiologist report Ex.P/8, hence, the conviction of the revision petitioner under section 325 of the IPC does not suffer any illegality. Accordingly, conviction of the revision petitioner under section 325 of the IPC is affirmed.
09. Short sentence serves no purpose as the petitioner has already undergone the period of 01 and half month's sentence of imprisonment. Accordingly, in spite of rest of the sentence of imprisonment, enhancement of fine amount will serve the purpose and the compensation amount provide relief to the victim. Hence, the revision petition is partly allowed and the sentence of 06 months under Section 325 of IPC is modified and reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone and the fine is enhanced from Rs.2000/- (Rs. Two Thousands) to Rs.20000/-(Rs. Twenty Thousand). The fine amount shall be deposited within 30 days from the date of his release. In case of failure to deposit the enhanced amount, the revision petitioner shall undergo original jail sentence.
10. The amount of fine of Rs.20000/-, if deposited by the revision petitioner, shall be paid to the victim/Shankarlal, R/o Village Nimnawasa, Police Station Chmanganj Mandi, Ujjain, M.P. as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. The
2
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
amount of fine, if any already deposited by the revision petitioners, shall be adjusted.
11. A copy of this order be sent by the Registry to the victim for information.
12. In view of the aforesaid, criminal revision is partly allowed and disposed off.
13. Pending applications, if any, stands closed.
14. A copy of this order alongwith the record of the trial court be sent to the learned trial Court for necessary information and compliance. C.C. as per rules.
amit
3
Comments