Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chandan Singh vs State Of M.P. on 24 July, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15454
1 CRR-196-2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 24th OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 196 of 2007
CHANDAN SINGH
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri B. K. Tyagi, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Abhishek Singh Bhadouria, Public Prosecutor for State.
ORDER
With the consent of both the parties, matter is heard finally.
2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C has been
filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by impugned judgment dated
21.2.2007 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Criminal
Appeal No.763/2006 affirming the judgment dated 15.11.2006 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guna in Criminal Case No.221 of 1999 by
which, petitioner has been convicted under sections 304-A, 337 and 338 of
IPC and sentenced to undergo one Year RI with fine of Rs.1000/-(two
counts), six months RI with fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulations.
3. The prosecution story in brief is that, on 22.4.2009 when
complainant Ramkumar along with Jitendra Kumar was coming towards
Patai in Metadoor bearing Registration No.MKH 8637. Petitioner who is
driver of the offending vehicle was driving rashly and negligently. Due to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15454
2 CRR-196-2007
which, vehicle met with an accident near Hanuman Temple, Sirsi Road.
Passengers who were travelling in metadoor sustained injuries. Injured
persons have been brought in Guna Hospital and Dehati Nalishi was
registered at Police Chowki Umari. During treatment, injured Indrabhan had
expired. Accordingly, offence has been registered.
4. After conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before
the trial Court. The Trial Court has framed the charges under Section 304-A,
337 and 338 of IPC against the petitioner. Petitioner/accused abjured his
guilt and pleaded complete innocence.
5. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record
convicted and sentenced the petitioner as aforementioned. Being aggrieved
by the aforesaid, petitioner has preferred a criminal appeal before the First
Additional Sessions Judge, Guna but same has been dismissed vide judgment
dated 21.2.2007 by affirming the judgment and conviction passed by the
Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, this criminal
revision has been preferred before this Court by the petitioner.
6. 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 petitioner remained in jail from 21.2.2007
to 9.4.2007 i.e. for about 46 days, he is facing trial since last 26 years and he
has now turned about 55 years, therefore, present revision be disposed of and
the jail sentence awarded to the petitioner be reduced to the period already
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15454
3 CRR-196-2007
undergone by him.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent/State on the other hand supports
the impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of this revision.
9. Since, the petitioner has not challenged the conviction recorded by
the courts below, in these circumstances, conviction recorded against the
petitioner is hereby affirmed. However, considering facts and circumstances
of the case and the fact that since the petitioner has already suffered jail
incarceration of about 46 days i.e. from 21.2.2007 to 9.4.2007, he is facing
trial since last 26 years, 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.
10. 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. Since petitioner is
already on bail, his bail bond and surety bond stand discharged. Disposal of
the property shall be conducted as per the order of the trial Court.
11. 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
R
