Madhya Pradesh High Court
Makhan Singh vs State Of M.P. on 23 April, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9121
1 CRR-1004-2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 23rd OF APRIL, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1004 of 2006
MAKHAN SINGH
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Kapil Singhal and Shri Ravindra Singh Kushwah - advocate for
the petitioner.
Shri Nirmal Sharma - PP for the respondent/State.
ORDER
With the consent of both the parties, matter is heard finally.
This criminal revision under Section 397(2) and 401 of Cr.P.C has
been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by impugned judgment dated
21/12/2004 passed by the Sessions Judge, Morena in Criminal Appeal
No.304 of 2003 whereby the judgment dated 25/08/2003 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambah, District - Morena in Criminal Case
No.51 of 2001 by which, the petitioner has been convicted under section
304-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year's R.I with fine of Rs.
1000/- with usual default stipulation, has been affirmed.
The prosecution story in brief is that on 21.10.2000 at about 12 Noon,
the son of complainant Moharaman aged about 8 years was returning from
his school. At that time, nearby Chambal Colony from the side of Porsa,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9121
2 CRR-1004-2006
appellant Makhan Singh came driving the jeep bearing registration
No.MP.06 B-0612 rashly and negligently hit Moharman due to which, he
sustained fatal injuries over his head, forehead, legs and hands. The incident
was witnessed by Ramvaran (PW1), Yaduvir Singh (PW2), and Rambabu
(PW3). The complaiannt lodged FIR at PS Ambah Distt. Morena and during
treatment, Moharaman has died. His Postmortem was conducted by Dr.
Surendra Singh Jadon. Accordingly, the offence has been registered.
After conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the
petitioner before the JMFC, Ambah who framed the charges under section
304-A of IPC agaisnt the petitioner. The petitioner accused abjured his guilt
and took a plea that he has been falsely been implicated in this matter. The
trial Court after scrutinizing evidence available on record and considering the
rival submissions made by both the parties, convicted accused appellant
Makhan Singh for the offence and sentenced as stated herein above. Being
aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner accused
preferred criminal appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambah but
the same was dismissed by the Appellate Court. Being aggrieved by the said
judgment, this criminal revision has been preferred before this Court by the
petitioner.
The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision on several grounds but
during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner did not
press this revision on merits and not assailed the finding part of the
impugned judgment. He confines his argument on the point of sentence only
and prays that since the petitioner remained in jail incarceration for three and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9121
3 CRR-1004-2006
half months; he is facing trial since 2000 i.e. for a period of almost 25 years
and he is not having any criminal antecedents, therefore, present revision be
disposed of and the jail sentence awarded to the petitioner be reduced to the
period already undergone by him.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State on the other hand supports
the impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of this revision.
Since, the petitioner has not challenged the conviction recorded by the
courts below, in these circumstnces, conviction recorded against the
petitioner under Section 304-A of IPC is hereby affiremd. However,
considering facts and circumstnces of the case and the fact that since the
petitioner has already suffered jail incarceratin of three and half months, he is
facing trial since 2000 i.e. for about 25 years and he is not having any
criminal antecedents, therefore, this Court finds it appropriate to partly allow
this revision petition by affirming the conviction of the petitioner, however,
reducing his jail sentence to the period already undergone by him.
High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Kaushal Prasad Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh reported in 2013 Cr.LJ 1653 (Chhattisgarh) has held as under :
"Keeping in view the fact that the applicant has already remained
in jail for 20 days, the incident had taken place about 12 years
back, he has no criminal antecedent, it would be in the interest of
justice, that the sentence imposed upon the applicant is reduced to
the period already undergone by him".
The same principle has been laid down by Hon'ble Apex Corut in the
case of Nagabhushanam Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2008) 5 SCC
On the basis of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9121
4 CRR-1004-2006
and by the High Court of Chhatgtisgarh, this court is of the considered view
that the interest of jsutice would be met if the applicant is sentenced under
Section 304-A of IPC to the period already undergone by him.
Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed by maintaining the
conviction of the petitioner, but reducing the jail sentence to the period
already undergone by him with fine as imposed by the trial court. The fine
amount has already been deposited by the petitioner. In case of default in
payment of fine, the petitioner shall have to undergo one month's RI. The
petitioner is reported to be on bail. Since the petitioner is already on bail, his
bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged. Disposal of the property shall
be conducted as per the order of the trial Court.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court along with the
records for information and necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Rks
