Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prakash vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 May, 2023
Author: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 11 th OF MAY, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 138 of 2014
BETWEEN:-
PRAKASH S/O HARIRAM MALI, AGED 35 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOURER R/O VILLAGE GIROTA, P.S.
GAUTAMPURA, TEHSIL DEPALPUR DISTRICT INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI PRAKASH PATEL - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THRU. P.S.
DEPALPUR, DIST. INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
( BY SHRI VISHAL PANWAR - PANEL LAWYER)
T h is revision coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
1 / This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under
Section 397 and Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment dated
27.1.2014 passed by II Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Appeal No.
646/2013 whereby the judgment dated 6.9.2013 passed by the JMFC, Depalpur
District Indore in Criminal Case No. 692/2011 has been affirmed, by which
applicant has been convicted for the offence under Section 304A of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPCÂ) and sentenced to 2 years R.I. with fine of
Rs. 2,000/-, with usual default stipulation.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 13-05-2023
13:21:46
2 / The prosecution story in brief is that on 27.7.2011 complainant
Jetram lodged an FIR at police station Depalpur by stating that on 27.7.2011 at
about 10 a.m. while his son Banshi was going to school at that time
applicant/accused Prakash came there by driving truck No. MP -09-MA-4156
rushly and negligently and hit Banshi from backside, due to which he fell down
on the road and wheel of the vehicle was passed over from his head, as a result
of which he succumbed on the spot. Dr. Himanshu (PW-5) conducted
postmortem of the deceased and opined that cause of death appears to be
accidental. During investigation, the offender vehicle was recovered from
possession of present applicant.
3 / After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed
against the applicant/accused before the trial Court. Trial court has framed the
charge under Section 304A of IPC against the present applicant. Applicant
abjured his guilt and took a plea that he has been falsely implicated in this
matter.
4/ Trial Court after considering the entire evidence available on record,
convicted and sentenced the applicant under section 304A of IPC and
sentenced him two years RI with fine of Rs. 2,000/- with usual default
stipulation.
5/ Being aggrieved by the said conviction, the applicant has preferred
Criminal Appeal before the II ASJ, Indore District Indore, but the same has
been dismissed by maintaining the judgment and order of conviction passed by
the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the applicant has
preferred the present Criminal Revision before this Court.
6/ Learned counsel for the applicant has not questioned the conviction
Signature Not Verified
under section 304-A of IPC but he has submitted that both the parties have
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 13-05-2023
13:21:46
compromised the matter and therefore, by maintaining the conviction, sentence
be reduced for the period already suffered by applicant by increasing the fine
amount.
7/ Both the parties have jointly filed applications under section 320 of
Cr.P.C. (I.A. No. 836/2023) and under section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. (I.A. No.
838/2023) by stating that matter has been amicably settled between both the
parties.
8/ On the direction issued by this Court on 28.3.2023 both the parties
appeared before the Principal Registrar of this Court on 12.4.2023 for
verification of factum of compromise. The verification report of the Principal
Registrar reveals that compromise has been duly verified and has been found to
be entered into voluntarily without any threat, inducement or coercion.
9/ Supreme court in the matter of Ishwar Singh Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2009 SCC 675 in a similar case where the
offence under Section 307 of IPC was committed and parties had
compromised the matter while noting the fact that though the offence is not
compoundable but sentence can be reduced in view of the compromise, has
held as under:
13. Now, it cannot be gainsaid that an offence
punishable under Section 307, IPC is not a
compoundable offence. Section 320 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 expressly states that no
offence shall be compounded if it is not
compoundable under the Code. At the same time,
however, while dealing with such matters, this Court
may take into account a relevant and important
consideration about compromise between the parties
for the purpose of reduction of sentence.
14. In Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2006) 9 SCC
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 13-05-2023
13:21:46
255, Murugesan & Ors. v. Ganapathy Velar, (2001)
10 SCC 504 and Ishwarlal v. State of M.P., JT 1988
(3) SC 366 (1), this Court, while taking into account
the fact of compromise between the parties, reduced
sentence imposed on the appellant-accused to already
undergone, though the offences were not
compoundable. But it was also stated that in Mahesh
Chand v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 SC 2111,
such offence was ordered to be compounded.
15. In our considered opinion, it would not be
appropriate to order compounding of an offence not
compoundable under the Code ignoring and keeping
aside statutory provisions. In our judgment, however,
limited submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant deserves consideration that while imposing
substantive sentence, the factum of compromise
between the parties is indeed a relevant circumstance
which, the Court may keep in mind.
16. In the instant case, the incident took place before
more than fifteen years; the parties are residing in one
and the same village and they are also relatives. The
appellant was about 20 years of age at the time of
commission of crime. It was his first offence. After
conviction, the petitioner was taken into custody.
During the pendency of appeal before the High Court,
he was enlarged on bail but, after the decision of the
High Court, he again surrendered and is in jail at
present. Though he had applied for bail, the prayer
was not granted and he is not released on bail.
Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, in
our opinion, ends of justice would be met if the
sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant
(Accused No.1) is reduced to the period already
undergone.
17. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to
be partly allowed and accordingly allowed by
maintaining the conviction recorded by the trial court
and confirmed by the Appellate Court but by reducing
the sentence already undergone by the appellant. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 13-05-2023
13:21:46
sentence of payment of fine is not disturbed. If the
appellant has not paid the amount of fine, he will pay
such amount within four weeks from today.
10/ Similarly in the matter of Bankat and another Vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in 2005 Cr.L.R. (SC) 17 where the conviction was
under Sections 325 and 326 read with section 34 of IPC it has been held that:
16. However, considering the fact that the parties have
settled their dispute outside the court, the fact that 10
years have elapsed from the date of the incident, and the
further fact that the appellants have already undergone
several months' imprisonment, ends of justice would be
met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the
period already undergone besides imposing a fine of
Rs.5000/- on each of the accused under Section 326
read with Section 34 IPC. In default of payment of fine,
the appellants concerned shall undergo imprisonment
for a further period of six months. We also refrain from
imposing any separate sentence on the other counts of
offences. Out of the fine amount, if realised, a sum of
Rs. 4000/- also be paid to each of the injured as
compensation.
11/ In the matter of Hasi Mohan Barman and another Vs. State of
Assam and another reported in (2008) 1SCC (Cri.) 161 where the offence
was under Section 313 read with Section 34 of IPC considering the similar issue
the Hon’ble Supreme court has held that :
10. The first decision on this point was rendered by
this Court in Ram Pujan and others vs. State of Uttar
Prades, wherein the trial court had convicted the
accused under Section 326 IPC which is a
noncompoundable offence and had sentenced the
accused to four years R.I. The High Court took into
consideration the compromise between the appellant
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 13-05-2023
13:21:46
accused and the injured and reduced the sentence to
two years R.I. This Court, after observing that the
fact of compromise can be taken into account in
determining the quantum of sentence, reduced the
sentence to the period already undergone which was
little more than four months and further imposed a
fine of Rs.1500/- on each of the appellants. Surendra
Nath Mohanty and another vs. State of Orissa is a
decision of a Bench of three learned Judges. It was
observed that in view of the legislative mandate
contained in Section 320 Cr.P.C. an offence can be
compounded only in accordance with the provisions
of the said section. The Court followed the view
taken in the case of Ram Pujan and having regard to
the fact that the parties had compromised and a
period of ten years had elapsed from the date of the
incident reduced the sentence of five years R.I.
Imposed under Sections 307 and 326 IPC to the
period of sentence already undergone which was
three months and also imposed fine of Rs.5,000/-.
11. There are several other decisions of this Court
wherein factor of compromise has been taken into
consideration and the sentence has been reduced
mostly to the period already undergone and they are
Bankat and another vs. State of Maharashtra, Badrilal
vs. State of M.P. and Jetha Ram and others vs. State
of Rajasthan.
12. Following the view taken in the above noted
cases we are of the opinion that the complainant and
the principal accused having already married it will
be in the interest of justice if the sentence is reduced
to the period already undergone. The appeal is
accordingly partly allowed. The conviction of the
appellants under Section 313 IPC is maintained but
the sentence is reduced to the period already
undergone which appears to be about ten months. The
fine imposed upon the appellants is also set aside.
The appellants are on bail. Their sureties and bail
bonds are discharged.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 13-05-2023
13:21:46
12/ Although the conviction under section 304-A of IPC has not
been challenged by the applicant but a perusal of the evidence available on
record also justifies the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court and
the first appellate court.
13/ So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the submission
made by learned counsel for the applicant appears to be just and proper. The
applicant has remained in custody since 29.1.2014 to 7.2.2014. He is facing
trial since 2011, the applicant is not having any criminal background, he is a
poor labourer therefore, it would be appropriate to reduce the jail sentence to
one month rigorous imprisonment by increasing the fine amount.
14/ Considering the aforesaid, jail sentence awarded to the applicant is
reduced from 2 years to one month RI for the offence under Section 304-A of
IPC. The fine amount of Rs. 2,000/- is enhanced to Rs. 25,000/-.
15/ Consequently the present Criminal Revision is disposed off. The
applicant is on bail, his bail bond and surety bond stands cancelled. Applicant
is directed to surrender before the concerned trial court on 5.6.2023 for
serving his remaining jail sentence as directed above.
16/ The order regarding disposal of the property as pronounced by the
trial Court is also affirmed.
17/ Let a copy of this order along with the record of the trial Court and
the first appellate court be sent back to the concerned court for necessary
action.
C.C. as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 13-05-2023
13:21:46
JUDGE
BDJ
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 13-05-2023
13:21:46
