Omprakash vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 21627 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Omprakash vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 December, 2023

Author: Anil Verma

Bench: Anil Verma

                                                               1
                            IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT INDORE
                                                        BEFORE
                                            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                                              ON THE 18 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                             CRIMINAL REVISION No. 994 of 2017

                           BETWEEN:-
                           OMPRAKASH S/O RAGHUNATH PATIDAR, AGED 51
                           YE A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST 54,SARDAR
                           PATAEL MARG, DHAMNOD, DISTT. DHAR (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI PALASH CHOUDHRY - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH         THRU.P.S.
                           KISHANGANJ DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENT
                           (BY SHRI D.G. MISHRA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                 This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                                ORDER

1 / The petitioner/accused has preferred this revision petition under

Section 397 & 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "Cr.P.C.") against the impugned judgment dated 2.8.2017 passed by the learned 3rd ASJ, Mhow District Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 850/2016, whereby the judgment dated 31.8.2016 passed by the learned JMFC, Mhow in Criminal Case No. 1856/2014 has been party allowed and petitioner has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") and sentenced to undergo 1 year's Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of

Rs.20,000/- with usual default stipulation.

2/ Brief facts of the case are that on 16.6.2014 at about 10.30 pm present applicant Om Prakash who was driver of the car bearing registration No. MP- 09-CL-4367 rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of complainant, due to which complainant Rajesh and Gaurav sustained various injuries including bony injury. M.L.C. and x-ray examination of victim was conducted by Dr. Pradeep Kumar and Dr. Basant Dakwale. Accordingly offence has been registered.

3 / After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the JMFC, Mhow, who framed the charges under Sections 279, 367 and 338 of IPC. The petitioner/accused abjured his guilt and pleaded complete

innocence. The trial Court after hearing both the parties and scrutinizing the entire evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the petitioner/accused as mentioned hereinabove. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred Criminal Appeal, which was partly allowed. Hence, this present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.

4/ The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision on several grounds but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press this revision on merit. He did not assail the finding part of the judgment. He has confined his arguments on the quantum of sentence only. His sole prayer is that the imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone and he is facing trial for last nine years and six months. During the trial as well as during pendency of the criminal appeal and this revision, he has cooperated. It is further contended that the petitioner is a poor person. He has no criminal past. Therefore, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone.

5 / Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the criminal revision and prayed for its dismissal by submitting that trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner.

6/ Learned counsel for both the parties heard at length and perused the record.

7 / In view of the above submissions, although the conviction has not b e e n challenged, perusal of the evidence also justified the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court as well as the first appellate court.

8/ So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the submission made b y learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be just and proper. The petitioner has remained in jail from 2.8.2017 to 9.8.2017. He has no criminal past. He is facing trial since 2014. Therefore, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner.

9/ Having regard to the aforesaid, this criminal revision is partly allowed by maintaining the conviction, but reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner. The fine amount is enhanced from Rs. 20,000- to Rs.21,000/- . The petitioner is directed to pay the enhanced fine amount within a period of two months from today. In default of payment of the enhanced fine amount, the petitioner/accused shall suffer 3 months imprisonment. The petitioner is on bail. His bail and surety bonds stand discharged.

10/ The order regarding disposal of the property, as pronounced by the trial Court, is also affirmed.

11/ Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment along with the record of the trial Court as well as record of the first appellate court, to the concerned trial Court for its necessary compliance.

C.C. as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE BDJ