Uma Prasad Bagri vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2443 MP

                                1

                                                                 CRR-2249-2020



        THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                 Criminal Revision No.2249/2020
           (Uma Prasad Bagri vs The State of Madhya Pradesh)

Jabalpur, Dated 16-06-2021.

      Heard through Video Conferencing.

      Shri Santosh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
      Shri Sourabh Shukla, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

I.A. No.12734/2020, an application for condonation of delay, is taken up for consideration.

1. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner belongs to a very poor family. No one is there to take care of his affairs, therefore, he has sent the petition through jail which has been awarded to him through legal aid. The petitioner was not even aware about his right to file petition, therefore, the delay occurred in filing of the petition.

2. On due consideration, the I.A. stands allowed and the delay in filing the petition is condoned.

3. Though the matter is listed for orders on I.A. No.12733/2020, an application for suspension of sentence, however, with consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally.

4. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 304-A of IPC and has been awarded 2 years' R.I. and fine of Rs.3000/- with default stipulation vide judgment dated 27.10.2017 passed by Judicial Officer, Gram Nyayalaya, Nagod in Criminal Case No.453/2009. His conviction and sentence has been affirmed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Nagod District Satna vide judgment dated 24.07.2019 rendered in Criminal Appeal No.3400181/2017.

CRR-2249-2020

5. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 20.07.2009 at about 2 p.m., the deceased, an 18-year-old girl, was going back home from her school, the petitioner drove his tractor bearing registration no.MP-19-D-5634 rashly and negligently and dashed her, resulting in her death. A merg was registered and on the basis of merg inquiry, an FIR No.360/2009 was registered at Police Station Nagod. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and the trial of the petitioner culminated in his conviction which is later affirmed in the appeal, as stated above.

6. The petitioner has preferred this revision petition on several grounds and has challenged his conviction on merits but during the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not want to press his petition on merits. His only submission is that the incident took place in the year 2009. At the time of incident, the petitioner was 56 years' old and now he is running in the advanced sixties (about 67-68 years of age). He is languishing in jail since 22.02.2020 and has served out substantial sentence of 1 year and 4 months, out of 2 years awarded by the trial Court without any remission. With remission, his sentence goes to the length of 1 year and 10 months.

7. It is further submitted that the petitioner belongs to a very poor family and was only a driver at that time which was the only source of his livelihood. His entire family was depending on him. Due to imprisonment, his family is facing financial hardship and it has become difficult for them to survive. The petitioner himself is very old man. His condition in jail in this pandemic era is deteriorating day-by-day and there is serious threat for his life in the jail. Therefore, his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.

CRR-2249-2020

8. Though the prosecution has opposed the prayer of the petitioner, but learned Public Prosecutor has not rebutted the facts stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

9. Having regard to the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, period of custody, the age of the petitioner and other facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be achieved if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. The fine amount has already been deposited as reflected from the order sheet dated 22.02.2020 (copy of the order is placed on record at Page 15 of the petition).

10. Resultantly, the revision petition is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner under Section 304-A of IPC is hereby confirmed, however, his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone with fine awarded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court.

11. With the aforesaid modification, the present petition is partly allowed and disposed of. All pending I.As stand closed.

12. The petitioner be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.

(Virender Singh) JUDGE vinod Digitally signed by VINOD VISHWAKARMA Date: 2021.06.17 14:34:52 +05'30'