ANAND PATHAK, J.

1. The present revision petition under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. is preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07/02/2024 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Pipariya District Narmadapuram in Criminal Appeal No.20/2022 whereby affirmed the judgment of conviction passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pipariya in Criminal Case No.400103/2013, whereby petitioner has been convicted as under :-

2. Precisely stated facts of the case as reflected in the case of prosecution are that on 23/11/2012 at about 10:30 A.M. when Shambhudahyal (PW-1), Railway Gateman was on duty and closed the railway gate for crossing the passenger train, at that time, petitioner along with co-accused Baliya came there on a bullock cart and wanted to open the gate for crossing. Shambhudayal (PW-1) refused to do so. Therefore, being infuriated, petitioner assaulted the complainant by means of rod which was laying there and co-accused Baliya by means of an axe. As a result of which, Shambhudayal received injuries and he could not attend the train.

3. First Information Report (Ex.P/1) was registered by Shambhudayal (PW-1) against petitioner and co-accused Baliya. Shambhudayal was medically examined by Dr. Bhagwandas (PW-9) and as per the medical opinion (Ex.P/13) simple injuries were found on his body. Matter was investigated and charge-sheet was filed in the matter before the competent Court of jurisdiction.

4. Before the trial Court – Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pipariya District Narmadapuram, petitioner abjured his guilt and prayed for trial.

5. Prosecution examined 9 witnesses including complainant Shambhudayal (PW-1) in support of its case. As per the examinationin-chief of complainant Shambhudayal (PW-1), he identified the petitioner and co-accused Baliya and narrated the incident. In crossexamination, his testimony stood affirmed and petitioner could not shake the testimony of prosecution witnesses. Dr. Bhagwan Das Rajoriya (PW-9) prepared the Medical Report (Ex.P/13) and gave opinion that victim sustained simple injuries. Petitioner did not produce any evidence and after recording the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., final hearing was conducted.

6. After recording of evidence ocular as well as documentary and hearing the submission of counsel for the parties, the trial Court convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 332 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.

7. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court has been challenged by the petitioner by preferring criminal appeal before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Pipariya District Narmadapuram in which rejected the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Therefore, petitioner/accused is before this Court under revisionist jurisdiction.

8. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Courts below erred in convicting the petitioner for the offence referred above. There is material contradictions and omissions between the statements of prosecution witnesses. The statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., it is clearly stated that co-accused Baliya has assaulted the Shambhudayal (PW-1) by means of an axe and the present petitioner reached the spot after the incident. Other independent witnesses have also not supported the version of Shambhudayal (PW-1). Due to previous enmity, petitioner has been made an accused by the complainant.

9. Alternatively, it is submitted that looking to the nature of offence, conviction and jail sentence and in view of the provisions of Section 357 of Cr.P.C. petitioner is ready to pay compensation/fine at higher side. Thus, prayer for undergone has been made by reducing the jail sentence already undergone by him by enhancing the fine amount as this Court deems fit.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer, supported the judgments passed by the Courts below and prayed for dismissal of petition. However, he fairly accepted that if petitioner is ready to pay enhanced fine then only his case for undergone may be considered.

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

12. It is a case where petitioner is facing the allegation of assaulting the public servant and caused disruption when he was on duty. Statement of Shambhudayal (PW-1) was not being shaken by defence in any manner. Examination-in-chief, in specifically terms, narrates the incident and in cross-examination, no dent has been made by the defence to infer otherwise. Although Raghuverdas (PW-2), Surendra Tiwari (PW-4) and Sunder (PW-7) did not support the story of prosecution, but other witnesses supported it especially, Ramju Uikey (PW-3), Makran Singh (PW-5) and Dr. Bhagwan Das Rajoriya (PW-9).

13. Testimony of Dr. Bhagwan Das Rajoriya (PW-9) indicates that total 9 injuries were sustained by the victim but all were simple in nature. Therefore, case is proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of medical report (Ex.P/13) and evidence referred above.

14. In view of the above, looking to the testimony of these witnesses, prosecution succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court rightly convicted the petitioner.

15. In the appeal, the appellate Court duly vetted the rival submissions and thereafter passed passed the impugned judgment of conviction against the petitioner. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258 and T. Subramanian vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 SCC 401 held that if two views are possible and one view is taken by the trial Court after due appreciation of evidence then unless sheer perversity or illegality crept in to the judgment of trial Court, the scope of interference is limited.

16. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that from the date of passing of judgment of conviction and order of sentence by the appellate Court, petitioner suffered around four months of incarceration of jail whereas punishment provided is one year. The case is pending since 2012 and almost 12 years of prosecution has been realized by the petitioner and therefore, case of the petitioner be considered for the sentence which is already undergone by him, for which he is ready to pay compensation at higher side. That will suitably compensate the complainant.

17. In view of above, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, jail sentence of petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him, maintaining the conviction recorded by the Courts below and in view of Section 357 of Cr.P.C., fine amount which has been imposed by the Courts below is enhanced. Petitioner is directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- (in addition) within two months from today while giving undertaking before the trial Court that if he fails to pay Rs.5,000/-, then trial Court would proceed against him to serve remaining part of jail sentence. If petitioner/revisionist does not deposit the amount as directed by this Court within the stipulated time then he shall have to serve the remaining jail sentence, for which the appellate Court sentenced him. It is made clear that this benefit of undergone has been given to the petitioner in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case where petitioner suffered sufficient incarceration. The compensation amount shall be paid to the complainant Shambhudayal after due verification by the trial Court. Petitioner is in jail. He be released forthwith after submission of undertaking.

18. Resultantly, the revision petition preferred by the petitioner stands disposed of in above terms.

19. Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for information and necessary compliance.