Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shubhkaran Kol vs The State Of M.P. on 9 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1053
1 CRR-523-2001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
ON THE 9 th OF JANUARY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 523 of 2001
SHUBHKARAN KOL
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Rupesh Thakur - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri K.S.Patel - Panel Lawyer for the State.
ORDER
This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed
by the applicant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.05.2001 passed in
CRA.No.59/2001 by V Additional District Judge, Rewa District Rewa
(M.P.) whereby judgment dated 19.03.2001 passed in Criminal Case
No.309/1996 by J.M.F.C., Rewa, District Rewa (M.P.) has been affirmed.
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on the basis of report, the case
was registered against the applicant for an offence under Section 304-A and
337 of the IPC with the allegation that he was the truck driver and on his
rash and negligent driving causing death of a labour Ramashraya Kol and
some of the persons were injured. After completion of investigation, charge-
sheet was filed before the Competent Court.
3. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses and
appreciating the evidence led by parties, learned Trial Court found the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1053
2 CRR-523-2001
applicant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC
and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.400/- and
under Section 337 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 months
with fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulation.
3. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment, the applicant has
preferred criminal appeal before the Appellate Court and affirming the
sentence in regard to Sections 304-A and 337 of the IPC. Hence, this
revision has been preferred before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant expressly gave up his challenge to
the findings of the Court below so far as the conviction of the applicant is
concerned. In other words, learned counsel for the applicant accepted the
finding of conviction passed against the applicant, however, he challenged
the quantum of punishment alone. It is submitted that the applicant is the
only earning member in his family, he is the first offender and counsel
assures that he will not involve in such criminal activities in future. It is also
submitted that having regard to all circumstances which resulted in
applicant's conviction and further keeping in view the fact that the applicant
is facing the trial since the year 1994 and this revision is pending since 2001,
therefore, it is prayed that the jail sentence of applicant be reduced suitably.
5. Learned State counsel has submitted that after appreciating the
evidence produced by the prosecution, the Court below has rightly found the
applicant guilty for the aforesaid offence, therefore, no grounds are available
for reducing the jail sentence awarded to the applicant, hence, he prayed for
dismissal of the revision.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1053
3 CRR-523-2001
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entire
record of the case, I am inclined to allow this revision in part upon finding
some force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.
7. Though, the applicant has not made any attempt to assail the finding
of his conviction on merits, yet with a view to satisfy myself as to whether
the findings of the Court below of conviction is legally sustainable or not, I
perused the record and especially therein having so perused, I am satisfied
that no case is made out to interfere in the findings of the Court below on
merits. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that the finding of the trial
court is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence
therefore, upheld the findings of conviction of applicant under Sections 304-
A and 337 of the IPC recorded by the Trial Court. The applicant has suffered
about four months of imprisonment.
8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant,
period of jail sentence and looking to the facts and circumstances of the
present case, I am of the considered view that the ends of justice would be
met if the applicant is sentenced for the period already undergone by him
with some enhancement in the fine amount.
9. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The impugned
conviction is hereby maintained. However, the jail sentence imposed on
applicant is reduced to the period already undergone by him and fine of
Rs.400/- is enhanced to Rs.4,000/- for Section 304-A of IPC and fine of
Rs.200/- is enhanced to Rs.500/- for Section 337 of the IPC which shall be
deposited within 45 days. In default of payment of fine amount within the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1053
4 CRR-523-2001
stipulated period, the applicant shall suffer S.I. for one month. The applicant
is on bail. His bail bond stands discharged.
10. With the aforesaid modification, the present criminal revision
stands partly allowed.
11. Let a copy of this order alongwith record be sent to the Trial Court
for information and necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
SSL
