Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Namdeo vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 August, 2024
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
1 CRR-2582-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 6 th OF AUGUST, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2582 of 2013
SANTOSH NAMDEO
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ashutosh Tiwari - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Dilip Shrivastava - Government Advocate for the State.
Reserved on : 24.07.2024
Pronounced on: 06.08.2024
ORDER
This criminal revision has been preferred by applicant (hereinafter referred to as
"accused") against the dismissal of his Criminal Appeal No.113/2013 by First
Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen, vide his judgment 28.12.2013 wherein he
upheld the conviction of accused for the offence of Sections 279 and 338 IPC and
also upheld his sentence under Section 338 (two counts) IPC to rigorous
imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs.500/- with default clause under each
count. This appeal was preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence
passed on 5.7.2013 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Goharganj, district
Raisen, in RCT No.581/2019.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 9.5.2009, Constables Pancham Singh and
Chetan Malviya were on a patrol duty; at around 8:00 p.m. they reached near
Bansal College and Rajhans Dhaba and their motorcycle was hit head-on by
Maruti Omni Van bearing registration no.MP-05-BA-2481, which was being
2 CRR-2582-2013
driven by accused rashly and negligently; on account of this accident, both the
motorcycle riders sustained injuries and their motorcycle was damaged too; they
were taken to Obedullaganj Government Hospital where they were medically
examined and given treatment; their injuries were found to be grievous; the FIR
was registered and after investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. After holding
the trial, JMFC Goharganj, held the accused guilty and sentenced him as
discussed above and his appeal was also dismissed under the impugned judgment.
3. The grounds raised in this criminal revision are that the judgments of
conviction and sentence passed by the two courts below are wrong in law and
against facts; the testimony of prosecution witnesses were appreciated incorrectly
in holding the accused guilty while it hadn't supported the case of prosecution; the
eyewitnesses had also turned hostile and the guilt of accused was not proved
beyond reasonable doubt; the burden of proof was wrongly placed on accused to
prove his innocence. It was, therefore, requested in revision-petition that it should
be allowed and the accused should be acquitted.
4. State has opposed this criminal revision claiming that the conviction and
sentence passed by the two courts below do not deserve any interference.
5. Both the parties have been heard and the records of the courts below have
been perused.
6. From the perusal of the record of trial court, it is clear that prosecution has
relied upon the testimony of total 11 witnesses while no one was examined in
defence. Exs.P-1 to P-13 were filed as documentary evidence and that too only on
behalf of prosecution. The witnesses examined before the trial court include
injured Pancham Singh (P.W.1) and also injured Chetan Malviya (P.W.4),
eyewitness Sanjay Singh (P.W.2), seizure witnesses Ramkaran (P.W.3) and
Santosh Kumar Namdeo (P.W.5), owner of the Omni Van which was involved in
3 CRR-2582-2013
the accident, Laxman Singh Malviya (P.W.6), Medical Officers Dr. Pramod
Bhargawa (P.W.7), Dr. Rajesh Sharma (P.W.10) and Dr. Brajesh Bamankar
(P.W.11), Investigating Officer C. S. Dubey (P.W.9) and Mechanical Examiner
Bhagwan Singh (P.W.8).
7. From the testimony of injured witnesses, it is established that they were
injured in a road traffic accident when their motorcycle was hit head-on by a
Maruti Omni Van which was trying to overtake the truck. Though it is claimed by
these witnesses that they went unconscious on account of the injuries sustained in
the accident but eyewitness Sanjay Singh (P.W.2) has proved that after seeing the
incident, he got the FIR registered, which is Ex.P-1. Though he could not on his
own disclose in his court testimony the registration number of Maruti Omni Van,
but when leading question was put to him by the prosecution itself, he confirmed
the registration number of both the vehicles involved in the accident.
8. The defence has raised questions on the testimony of this witness by claiming
that he saw the incident from a distance of 130 meters but it cannot be ignored that
he has his dhaba running on the highway and has claimed to be present there at the
time of incident. His testimony has not been challenged on the point that he was
not able to see the registration number of vehicle at the time of accident, therefore
on the basis of cumulative evidence of injured and this eyewitness, it is proved
that prosecution has been able to establish that the Maruti Omni Van mentioned in
the FIR was being driven rashly and negligently and for this reason, it couldn't be
stopped immediately after the accident and ran into an agriculture field where it
stopped ultimately. This evidence sufficiently proves rash and negligent driving
on the part of van driver. It is also established in the case that both Pancham Singh
and Chetan Malviya were on that motorcycle at the time of accident.
9. The medical evidence produced in this case proves beyond doubt that they
4 CRR-2582-2013
both sustained grievous injuries and the defence has not attempted to challenge
this medical evidence substantially. Thus, on the strength of medical evidence, it
is established that both the victims sustained grievous injuries in the accident.
10. It has been claimed that the prosecution could not prove that accused was
driving that Omni Van at the time of accident but for this, prosecution has placed
reliance on the testimony of Omni Van owner, namely Laxman Singh Malviya
(P.W.6), who has stated on oath that the accused was his driver at the time of
accident and it was informed by accused himself to this witness that he had met
with an accident near Obedullaganj. According to this witness, he informed the
police about the ownership of vehicle as well as about its driver. The cross-
examination of this witness on behalf of accused suggests that his testimony was
not at all challenged. The only query made by defence to this witness was the
accused was not a permanent driver but here we are not at all concerned about the
nature of the employment of accused. We merely have to examine whether he was
driving the questioned Omni Van at the time of accident and the answer to this
question is definitely "yes" for the absence of any substantive cross-examination
on this witness.
11. On the basis of foregoing discussion, this revision petition fails to the extent
of conviction of accused under the impugned judgment and it is upheld that the
accused was rightly convicted for the offence of Sections 279 and 338 (two
counts) IPC.
12. The accused has challenged the sentence as well, that was awarded by the
two courts below. The records reveal that the appeal was dismissed under the
impugned judgment on 28.12.2013 and the application for seeking suspension of
sentence was allowed by this Court on 8.1.2014. Definitely, in this period, the
5 CRR-2582-2013
accused was in custody and looking to the nature of crime, this period of custody
is substantial. Therefore, the accused is sentenced to the period already undergone
by him in custody against his conviction under the offence of Section 338 (two
counts) of IPC. The courts below sentenced him to fine of Rs.500/- under each
count. Again, considering the nature of injuries, that part of sentence i.e. fine of
Rs.500/- under each count is set aside and instead the accused is directed to pay
compensation amount of Rs.2,500/- to each of the victims under Section 357
Cr.P.C. The fine amount, if any, paid by accused shall be adjusted against this
modified sentence. The accused is directed to pay this compensation amount by
depositing it in the trial court within a period of 45 days from the date of this
order, otherwise he will have to suffer a sentence of simple imprisonment for one
month under each default.
13. The bail-bonds of accused are discharged.
14. A copy of this order along with its records be send to the trial court for
information and necessary compliance.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
ps
Date: 2024.08.07 13:01:05 +05'30'
