Girraj Singh Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 20060 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Girraj Singh Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 November, 2023

                                                                              1

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                                  AT GWALIOR
                                                                          BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV
                                                    ON THE 30 OF NOVEMBER, 2023
                                              CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1557 OF 2019

                          BETWEEN:-

                          GIRRAJ SINGH GURJAR, S/O SHRI JANDEL
                          SINGH GURJAR, AGE- 26 YEARS, R/O- MLB
                          ROAD NEAR GANESH MANDIR, SINDHE KI
                          CHHAWANI GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH).

                                                                                                       ........REVISIONIST

                          (BY SHRI RINKESH GOYAL - ADVOCATE)

                          AND

                          STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                          POLICE STATION- SATANWADA, DISTRICT -
                          SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH).

                                                                                                       ........RESPONDENT

                          (SHRI V.P.S. TOMAR - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Reserved on                                 :        7th of November, 2023
                          Pronounced on                         :       30 of November, 2023
                          ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  This Criminal Revision having been heard and reserved for
                          orders, coming on for pronouncement this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
                          Rajendra Kumar-IV pronounced the following::
                                                                    JUDGMENT

In the present Criminal Revision, challenge is made to the

judgment dated 12/3/2019 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Criminal Appeal No.508/2017, and order dated 31/10/2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shivpuri in Criminal Case No.2801130/2016, Police Station Satanwada, District Shivpuri.

2. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shivpuri convicted and sentenced the accused/revisionist under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC and 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act. Court sentenced the accused/revisionist under Section 279 of IPC to undergo three months RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-, under Section 337 of IPC to undergo three months RI with fine of Rs.500/-, under Section 338 of IPC to undergo one year RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- and under Section 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act with fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default stipulation.

3. Against the judgment passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shivpuri, the accused filed a Cr.A. No.508/2017 before the Sessions Judge, Shivpuri which came to be heard by Upper Sessions Judge, Shivpuri. The appellate Court confirmed the conviction of the accused/appellant under the aforesaid Sections but modifying the sentence, appellate Court sentenced the accused/appellant under Section 338 of IPC to undergo 30 days RI and fine of Rs.1,000/-. Court further sentenced the accused/appellant under Sections 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation. Both the judgments are impugned in the present case.

4. Brief facts of the present case are that on 30/7/2016 complainant- Kailash, working as a Line Helper in Dhaulpur Beat of the Electricity Department, was going to Shivpuri from Dhaulpur on a motorcycle, sitting as a pillion rider. The motorcycle was being driven by Rafiq Khan, Lineman. When they reached near Vinega Gate, A.B. Road,

driver of a red colour Car No.MP 06 C.A. 0593, by driving the car rashly and negligently, dashed motorcycle from the rear side, as a result of which, complainant and Rafiq Khan both fell down and sustained injuries on their knees, elbows and fingers. The driver of the car fled away from the spot towards Shivpuri with the car.

5. FIR was registered against car driver on the application of the complainant-Kailash in Police Station concerned. Matter was investigated by Investigating Officer and after investigation, Investigating Officer PW-5 submitted charge-sheet against the accused / revisionist, who came into light during investigation.

6. Learned Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, found the prosecution case proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused/revisionist and convicted & sentenced him as stated hereinabove. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, accused /revisionist preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court, which was partly allowed as stated hereinabove. Challenging the aforesaid judgments passed by learned Courts below, accused/revisionist has preferred this Criminal Revision before this Court.

7. Heard learned counsel for the accused/revisionist, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material available on record.

8. Learned counsel for the accused/revisionist submits that accused/revisionist is innocent. He has committed no offence. He was not named in FIR, his name has been surfaced during investigation. Accused/revisionist has been in jail for more than 15 days and he has been facing trial, appeal and revision for the last more than seven years. He is a poor person. Although he is innocent in the present case, but learned counsel for accused/revisionist submits that he is not pressing

the revision on merit, rather he is pressing it on the point of sentence only. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the accused/revisionist that although accused/revisionist has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a maximum period of thirty days, but after a considerable time, sending him in jail would not meet the ends of justice. Under these circumstances, sentence of accused/revisionist may be reduced to the period already undergone with fine.

9. Learned Panel Lawyer opposed the revision, but he has no objection if the accused/revisionist is considered on the point of sentence. Learned Panel Lawyer submits that appropriate sentence must be awarded to him.

10. Upon careful consideration of statements of witnesses, specially statement of victim and other material on record, I find that the Courts below, after appreciation of evidence, have rightly convicted the accused/revisionist under the alleged Sections. Impugned judgments are well discussed and evidence establishes the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. I do not persuade myself to take a different view than that of the Courts below in respect of conviction of the accused/revisionist. Hence, revision deserves dismissal on merit.

11. I find no merit in this revision, accordingly, Criminal Revision is dismissed on merit.

12. So far as sentence is concerned, admittedly the incident of this case is of the year 2016 and more than seven years have elapsed. Accused/revisionist faced the trial as well as appeal and revision. It is obvious that during this period he had to suffer a great mental agony & harassment and he must have also incurred expenses defending himself during the entire period.

13. It is settled legal position that appropriate sentence should be awarded after giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence and the manner in which, it was executed or committed. The measure of punishment should be proportionate to gravity of offence. Object of sentencing should be to protect society and to deter the criminal in achieving avowed object of law. Further, it is expected that Courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects conscience of society and sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against individual but also against society to which criminal and victim belong.

14. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the manner in which offence was committed as also the age of victim and accused/revisionist, I deem it appropriate to modify the sentence awarded to the accused/revisionist by the Courts below, keeping in view that the possibility of his correction cannot be ruled out. I dispose of the revision and modify the impugned order of sentence in the following manner:-

(i) Conviction of the accused/revisionist under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC & Section 146/196 of the Motor Vehicles Act is confirmed and maintained. Criminal Revision is dismissed on merit.

(ii) Sentence of accused/revisionist under the aforesaid section is modified and he is sentenced to substantive imprisonment of already undergone by

him with a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousands Only), which shall be deposited within two months from today in the Trial Court concerned, failing which he shall undergo for simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

(iii) On deposit of fine, Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousands Only) will be paid to the victim and remaining fine amount shall go in favour of the State Government.

15. Criminal Revision is disposed of with above terms.

16. Certify this judgment to the Trial Court concerned for immediate compliance.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV) JUDGE Arun*