Rajendrasingh @ Rajesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 9057 MP

                                     -1-


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                   AT I N D O R E
                         BEFORE
             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
                     ON THE 19th OF JUNE, 2023


               CRIMINAL REVISION No. 642 of 2016

BETWEEN:-
RAJENDRASINGH @ RAJESH S/O SHRI BHAGWANSINGH, AGED ABOUT
39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MAJDOORI 519, NEHRU NAGAR, DISTT.
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                          .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI KHILADI LAL GANGORE, ADVOCATE)

AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER THRU.
P.S. NEELGANGA, UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI TARUN KUSHWAH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
        This revision coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
                                ORDER

With the consent of the parties, heard finally.

The applicant has filed the present revision under Section 397 r/w section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against (i) judgment dated 23.02.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gram Nyayalaya, Ujjain in Criminal Case No.136/2010, whereby he has been convicted under Sections 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal

Code and sentenced to undergo 03 months' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.500/- and 06 months rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively with default stipulations & (ii) judgment dated 13.05.2016 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, in Sessions Trial No.110/2016, whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the aforesaid conviction and sentence has been affirmed.

02. As per prosecution story, on 02.10.2007, complainant - Chadarlal got recorded Dehati Nalishi stating that he along with his grandson Sandeep came to Indore from loading auto rickshaw bearing registration M.P. 09 LN 1003. Applicant - Rajendra Singh @ Rajesh was driving the vehicle. On 02.10.2007, after loading six pigs in the auto rickshaw they were returning to Indore. Applicant was driving the auto rickshaw rashly and negligently in drunken condition. Due to the negligent driving, auto rickshaw overturned due to which complainant, Sandeep and Rajesh sustained injuries. The animals loaded in the vehicle fled away. The Dehati Nalishi was registered under Sections 279 & 337 of the IPC followed by the registration of F.I.R. at Crime No.550/2007. Thereafter, the matter was investigated. At the time of filing of the charge-sheet, Section 338 of the IPC was also added. Applicant denied the charges and pleaded innocent. Vide judgment dated 23.02.2016 the applicant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of the IPC, however, he has been sentenced under Sections 337 & 338 of the IPC. Against which, an appeal has been filed which has also been dismissed vide judgment dated 13.05.2016.

03. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is not assailing

the findings recorded by the trial Court on merit. The appellant is not a habitual offender. He was engaged as a driver. Because of the bad road condition, the accident took place. He was driving the vehicle carefully. He remained in jail for more than one month. There is no minimum sentence provided under Sections 337 & 338 of the IPC, therefore, the jail sentence may kindly be reduced to the period already undergone by the applicant. The Court may consider the issue of enhancement of fine.

04. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent / State opposes the aforesaid prayer by submitting that the trial Court has found that this applicant was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently in drunken condition, therefore, minimum sentence has been awarded which is not liable to be reduced.

05. The trial Court has not recorded that this appellant is not a history sheeter, he was only a driver. It is true that he caused the accident, but there is no finding that he deliberately committed the offence. Liver of the vehicle was broken. This Court has suspended the jail sentence of the applicant and released him on bail vide order dated 14.06.2016.

06. In view of the above, Criminal Revision is partly allowed and the jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the applicant. Fine amount is enhanced to Rs.3,000/- in total which shall be payable to the complainant.

Record of the Court below be sent back.

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE Ravi Digitally signed by RAVI PRAKASH Date: 2023.06.21 19:40:49 +05'30'