Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gyan Singh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 August, 2024
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
1 CRR-2396-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 8 th OF AUGUST, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2396 of 2024
GYAN SINGH YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Pushpendra Dev Pandey, counsel for the applicant.
Shri S.M.Patel, P.L. for respondent/State.
ORDER
Applicant has filed this revision against the appellate judgment dated
03.05.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 164/2022 (Gyan Singh Yadav vs.
State of M.P.) whereby Criminal Appeal preferred against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 31.10.2022 passed in RCT
No.1101259/2014 arising out of Crime No.11 9/2014 of P.S. Garhimalhara
District Chhatarpur, with regard to offence under section 279 and 337 of IPC
has been set aside while judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the
applicant under section 338 of IPC and under section 184 and 77/177 of
Motor Vehicle Act, has been affirmed.
2. As per the prosecution story, on 23 .06.2014 complainant Bhupendra
Kumar lodged Dehati Nalsi alleging that at around 1.00 P.M.,he alongwith
Mukesh riding on his motorcycle were going to village Luheri. Suddenly,
near village Ujra, Gyan Singh driver of red coloured Mohendra tractor
bearing No.UP-95-D-4626 driving rashly and negligently came and dashed
the cultivator behind the tractor due to which they both fell down and
complainant sustained injury in his right leg. Injured was taken to
Chhatarpur hospital. FIR was registered. After investigation, charge sheet
2 CRR-2396-2024
was filed.
3. Learned trial Court stated particulars of crime. Accused pleaded not
guilty. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined ten prosecution
witnesses. After hearing the parties, learned trial Court convicted and
sentenced the applicant as mentioned hereinabove. Against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence, appeal was preferred before the Court of
Session. The learned sessions court set aside the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence under section 279 and 337 of IPC but affirmed the same
with regard to section 338 of IPC and section 184 and 77/177 of M.V. Act.
Hence, this revision.
4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant/accused has
submitted that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the
applicant/accused for commission of aforesaid offence but it is submitted
that applicant is in jail since the date of appellate judgment i.e 03.05.2024.
He has already suffered jail sentence for more than 03 months and 10 days.
Therefore, it is prayed that sentence may be reduced to the period already
undergone by the applicant in jail so far, as jail sentence awarded by trial
Court and first appellate Court is of only 06 months R.I.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that it has
no objection if jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by
the applicant/accused as he has suffered major part of the sentence awarded
by the trial Court.
6. On a perusal of the record, it is apparent that applicant is in jail since the
date of appellate judgment i.e 03.05.2024. He has already suffered jail
sentence of 3 months and 10 days so far. Jail sentence awarded by the trial
Court is of 06 months R.I. The applicant has no criminal background. It is his
first offence. Therefore, having taken into consideration all the facts and
circumstances of the case including the evidence on record, this Court finds
3 CRR-2396-2024
no illegality, irregularity and impropriety in the findings of the conviction
recorded by the trial Court and appellate Court. Therefore, finding of
conviction recorded by the Courts below for commission of aforesaid
offence, is hereby affirmed.
7. As applicant has already suffered more than 03 months and 10 days in
jail, it appears just, proper and reasonable to reduce his jail sentence to the
period already undergone by him so far.
8. Consequently, this criminal revision is allowed in part to the extent of
modification of jail sentence only. Instead of 6-6 months R.I. jail sentence of
applicant Gyan Singh Yadav is reduced to the period already undergone by
him so far. Registry is directed to issue super session warrant at the earliest
to concerned Jail Authority. If applicant Gyan Singh Yadav is not required in
any other offence, he be released in this case forthwith.
9. Trial Court record along with a copy of the order be sent down to the
Court concerned through the Sessions Judge Chhatarpur.
1 0 . With the aforesaid modification, this revision is disposed off.
Consequently, I.A.No.11879/2024 under section 397(1) of Cr.P.C also stands
disposed off.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
MKL
