Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 January, 2023
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
CRIMINAL REVISION No.2195/2022
Between:-
JAGDISH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
S/O SUKHILAL, R/O- DURGA NAGAR,
VIDISHA, DISTRICT VIDISHA (M.P.)
OCCUPATION-DRIVER OF BORING
MACHINE
......APPLICANT
(BY SHRI AMAN CHOURASIYA, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH POLICE STATION, DEVNAGAR
DISTRICT RAISEN (M.P).
...RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI Y.D. YADAV-GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
....................................................................................................
Reserved on:16.12.2022
Pronounced on:11.01.2023
....................................................................................................
This criminal revision having been heard and reserved for order,
coming on for pronouncement this day, the Court pronounced the
following:
2
ORDER
Applicant has filed this revision against the judgment dated
03.06.2022 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Begamganj district
Raisen in Cr.A. No.51/2019 affirming the judgment dated 21.12.2018 passed
by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gairatganj in Criminal Case No. RCT
242/2013 (State of M.P. Vs. Jagdish) convicting the applicant under Section
304-A of the IPC and sentenced him to RI for one year with fine of
Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.
2. According to prosecution story, in the intervening night of 15-16 th
May, 2013 at around 02:30 A.M. in village Khijra Mahalpur applicant
Jagdish who was the driver of boring machine (Truck No. M.P.40-H-0125)
by rash and negligent driving and without giving any indicator or blowing
horn reversed the aforesaid truck due to which deceased Dashrath, who was
lying behind the truck was run over and died. On receiving information from
District Hospital,Vidisha merg intimation No. 36/2013 under Section 174 of
Cr.P.C. was recorded. After inquiry police Devnagar registered FIR for
commission of offence under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC against the
applicant and after investigation filed charge-sheet in the Court.
3. Learned trial Court relying on the evidence of Dr. Punit Maheshwari
(PW-10) Paohap Singh (PW-3) and Amar Singh (PW-8) held the applicant
guilty of the aforesaid offence and convicted and sentenced him accordingly.
The appeal preferred by the applicant was dismissed by First Additional
Sessions Judge, Begamganj.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant at the very outset submits that
applicant does not want to challenge his conviction under Section 304-A of
IPC. He submits that applicant is in jail for more than last 7 (seven) months.
He has undergone almost 8 months and 5 days imprisonment so far. It is
submitted that period of sentence of one year be reduced to the period
already undergone by the applicant for commission of offence under Section
304-A of IPC as applicant is first offender and has no criminal antecedent.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has supported the
conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court and affirmed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Learned counsel for the State has
fairly admitted that applicant has suffered more than 8 months sentence so
far. Therefore, he has no objection if his sentence is reduced to the period
already undergone by him so far.
6. On perusal of the evidence on record, it is apparent that deceased
Dashrath Singh had died on 16.05.2013 as he was crushed under the wheels
of boring machine and he had died due to rash and negligent act not
amounting to culpable homicide.
7. On a perusal of the evidence Paohap Singh (PW-3) accused Jagdish
was the driver of the Truck No.M.P. 48-H-0125 on which boring machine
was installed and was doing boring at the field of Paohap Singh's field. At
around 01:30 A.M. truck was being driven by the applicant Jagdish. Paohap
Singh (PW-3) has stated that Jagdish without blowing any horn reversed the
boring machine due to which the deceased Dashrath crushed under the
wheels of truck and died on the spot. Same is the evidence of Amar Singh
(PW-8) who was also present on the spot. He has deposed that after doing
boring Jagdish, who was in drunken condition reversed the truck rashly and
negligently, due to which Dashrath was crushed under the wheels of truck.
Aforesaid both witnesses have been remained firm and consistent in their
cross-examination.
8. Therefore, I am of the view that learned trial Court as well as learned
Additional Sessions Judge has not committed any error in holding that it
was the applicant accused Jagdish, who by driving truck No. M.P.-40-H-
0125 rashly and negligently caused the death of Dashrath and his act does
not amount to culpable homicide. Thus I am of the view that learned trial
Court has not committed any error in holding the applicant guilty for
commission of offence under Section 304-A of IPC likewise learned
Additional Sessions Judge has not committed any error in affirming the
findings recorded by the learned trial Court. Thus, there are concurrent
findings of the fact that it was the applicant Jagdish, who by driving vehicle
No.M.P.-40-H-0125 rashly and negligently without blowing horn and giving
any indicator of reversing the truck, reversed the truck and run over the
deceased Dashrath, who was lying or sitting behind the truck. Thus, the
concurrent findings recorded by the learned trial Court as well as the
Additional Sessions Judge are confirmed.
9. Learned trial Court has awarded sentence of one year R.I. and fine of
Rs. 1,000/-. Applicant-accused has no criminal background. He is first
offender. He has already served more than 8 (Eight) months jail sentence.
Therefore, having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the
case in which the accident had occurred, I am of the view that it would be
appropriate to reduce the jail sentence awarded to the applicant to the period
already undergone by him as it is his first offence. He is suffering the rigour
of the trial since 2013. Nine years has already elapsed.
10. In the result, the revision is allowed in part. The impugned conviction
is hereby affirmed. The custodial sentence under Section 304-A of the IPC is
reduced for one year to the period already undergone by applicant Jagdish,
son of Shukhlal but the fine amount is enhanced from Rs. 1,000/- to 5,000/-.
In default of payment of fine, applicant shall suffer imprisonment for a
period of two months RI.
11. Registry is directed to prepare super session warrant. A copy of the
order be sent down to Assistant Jail Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Begumganj
and to the Court concerned to the effect that if applicant Jagdish son of
Sukhlal is not wanted in any other offence, he be released in this case
forthwith. Trial Court record along with a copy of the order be sent down to
the Court concerned through the Sessions Judge Raisen.
12. Out of the fine amount an amount of Rs. 4,000/- be given to the legal
heirs of the deceased as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
13. With the aforesaid modification, this revision is disposed of.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
kundan
Digitally signed by
JASLEEN SINGH SALUJA
Date: 2023.01.12 11:39:29
+05'30'
