Full Judgment
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR Criminal Revision No.666/1999 Harishankar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties: Shri Ashutosh Tiwari, counsel for the applicant. Shri Vinot Fauzdar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER
(Passed on 21st day of February, 2013) The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC vide judgment dated 17.12.1998 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. (Shri P.L. Dinker), Burhanpur in criminal appeal no.448/1994 and sentenced for one years R.I. with fine of `5,000/-. In criminal appeal no.9/99, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur vide judgment dated 13.4.1999 maintained the conviction directed against the applicant and sentence was reduced from the period of one year R.I. to the period of six months R.I. Being aggrieved with both judgments passed by the appellate Court as well as the trial Court, the present revision is preferred. 2 Criminal Revision No.666/1999 2. The prosecution's case relating to the present revision, in short is that, on 20.3.1985 the applicant was plying a truck not MPV 458.by rashly and negligently. The applicant crushed a boy Radheshyam aged about 12 years near Dahinala within the jurisdiction of the Police Station, Nimbola. He was arrested at the spot and thereafter, a charge sheet was filed after due investigation.
3. The applicant abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific plea in the case and therefore, no defence evidence was adduced.
4. The learned J.M.F.C. Burhanpur after considering the prosecution's evidence convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above, whereas the result of appeal is also mentioned in the first para of the order.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant does not challenge the conviction directed against him. However, looking to the evidence adduced by the both the parties, where a concurrent finding was given by both the Courts below about the conviction, there is no need to interfere in the conviction. Hence, the conviction directed against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC is hereby maintained.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant has also 3 Criminal Revision No.666/1999 submitted that the applicant remained in the custody for 39 days. He has faced the trial, appeal and the present revision for last 19 years. He was directed to attend the several Courts during these 19 years and therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may not be sent to the jail again. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed his reliance upon the order passed by the Single Bench of this Court in the case of “Komal Singh Vs. State of M.P.”
. [1984 WN Note 689]., wherein it was decided that the incident was four years old and the accused remained in the custody for slightly more than a week and therefore, his sentence was reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody by imposing some fine amount.
8. In the present case, the trial Court has imposed a sum of `5,000/- upon the applicant and looking to the jurisdiction of the trial Court, the amount of fine cannot be enhanced. However, the applicant remained in the custody for 39 days and therefore, it would be proper that his sentence may be reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody because he has faced the trial, appeal the present revision for last 19 years. Hence, in the light of the aforesaid order passed in the case of Komal Singh (Supra), the revision filed by the applicant can be accepted.
9. Under such circumstances, the revision filed by the applicant is hereby partly allowed. The conviction directed for the 4 Criminal Revision No.666/1999 offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC is hereby maintained but the sentence is reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody. There is no change in the fine amount.
10. At present, the applicant is on bail. His presence is no more required before this Court therefore, it is directed that his bail bonds shall stand discharged.
11. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court as well as appellate Court alongwith their records for information. (N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE 21 02.2013 pnkj