Madhya Pradesh High Court
Indresh Dave vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 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 21 st OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3134 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
INDRESH DAVE S/O SHRI MANMOHAN DAVE, AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR, R/O: MAXI
ROAD, PAWASA, DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY MS. BHAVNA RAIKWAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION INDUSTRIAL
AREA, DIST. DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MR. KAPIL MAHANT - PANEL LAWYER)
This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
With the consent of both the parties, matter is heard finally at the motion
hearing stage itself.
2. The applicant has preferred this Criminal Revision under Section 397
read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short
'Cr.P.C.'), being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 03.07.2023 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge,
Dewas in Criminal Appeal No.72/2022, whereby the judgment dated 30.06.2022
passed by the JMFC, Dewas in Criminal Case No.2704890/2013 has been
affirmed, whereby applicant has been convicted for the offence under Sections
279 of IPC and sentenced 3 months S.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/- with usual
default stipulation.
3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 10.07.2013 at about 8:00 PM,
complainant was going to Panchal Engineering Company, at that time a Bolero
vehicle bearing registration No.MP-13-PA-0705 rashly and negligently dashed
the motorcycle of complainant, due to which, complainant sustained simple
injuries.
4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against
the present applicant before the JMFC, Dewas, who has framed the charged
under Section 279 of IPC against the applicant. Applicant has abjured his guilt
and took a plea that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The trial
Court after considering the submissions advanced by both the parties and
scrutinizing entire evidence available on record, convicted the present applicant
Indresh Dave under Section 279 of IPC and sentenced him 3 months S.I. with
fine of Rs.1,000/- with usual default stimulation.
5. Being aggrieved by the said conviction, the present applicant has
preferred a Criminal Appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas, but
the same was dismissed by affirming the judgment and sentenced by the trial
Court. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence passed by both the
Courts below applicant has preferred this Criminal Revision before this Court.
6. The applicant has preferred present Revision on several grounds, but
during the course of the argument, learned counsel for the applicant submits
that applicant does not want to press this Criminal Revision on merit and is not
assailing the conviction and sentence part of the judgment. He has confined his
argument only to the extent of quantum of the sentence and his sole prayer is
that the imprisonment of the applicant be reduced to the period already
undergone by him, as the applicant is facing trial for last 1 and half years.
Applicant is a young person of 36 years of age and is not having any criminal
background Therefore, his jail sentence be reduced to the period already
undergone.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the
revision and prays for its rejection by submitting that both the Courts below
have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant and the sentence in question
is sufficient.
8. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
9. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant,
although the conviction has not been challenged, but a bare perusal of the
evidence available on record, also justifies the judgment of conviction passed
by both the Courts below.
10. So far as the quantum of jail sentence is concerned, the submissions
made by learned counsel for the applicant appears to be just and proper. The
present applicant remained in custody for a period of four days and he has
suffered jail incarceration from 11.09.2023 to 14.09.2023. At the time of
incident present applicant was a young man of 35 years of age. Therefore, in the
interest of justice, it would be appropriate to reduce the jail sentence to the
period already undergone by the applicant.
11. Considering the aforesaid, the revision is partly allowed by
maintaining the conviction of the applicant, but reducing his jail sentence to the
period already undergone by him. The fine amount imposed upon the applicant
by both the Courts below is hereby affirmed. Applicant Indresh Dave is on bail,
his surety and bail bonds stands discharged.
12. The order regarding disposal of the property as pronounced by the
trial Court is also affirmed.
13. Let a copy of this order alongwith record of both the Courts below
be sent back to the concerned Courts for information and necessary
compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Anushree
