Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamta Prasad vs State Of M.P. on 1 May, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9653
1 CRR-132-2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 1 st OF MAY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 132 of 2007
KAMTA PRASAD
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Mahendra Chaudhary - advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Harish Sharma - PP for the respondent/State.
ORDER
With the consent of both the parties, matter is heard finally.
This criminal revision under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C has been
filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by impugned judgment dated
18.01.2007 passed by the III ASJ (Fast Track Court), Dabra distt. Gwalior in
Criminal Appeal No.94 of 2005 whereby the judgment dated 28/03/2005
passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabra District - Gwalior in
Criminal Case No.414 of 2002 by which, the petitioner has been convicted
under section 304-A and 337 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Six months
RI with Fine of Rs.250/- and with fine of Rs.200/- respectively with usual
default stipulation, has been affirmed.
The prosecution story in brief is that, on 24.06.1991 complainant
Pappu along with parents and other family members went to Chhimak in
respect of performing some religious ceremony, in a Jeep bearing registration
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9653
2 CRR-132-2007
No.CPG. 318. Near the Asmani Mata Mandir, the vehicle was stopped and
all the persons started de-boarding the jeep. Mother of the complainant,
deceased Dhanti Bai and injured Vaikunthi Bai were de-boarding from the
back side of the jeep at that time, the petitioner-accused rashly and
negligently driven the vehicle and hit them due to which, Dhanti Bai died on
the spot and Vaikunthi Bai sustained grievous injuries. Postmortem of the
deceased Dhanti Bai was conducted by Dr. M.A.Ahmed (PW9) and MLC of
victim Vaikunthi Bai was also conducted by him. Accordingly, the offence
has been registered against the petitioner/accused.
After conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the
petitioner before the JMFC, Dabra who framed the charges under section
304-A and 337 of IPC against 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 petitioner Kamta Prasad 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 III Additional
Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) Dabra 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9653
3 CRR-132-2007
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
half months; he is facing trial since 1991 i.e. for a period of almost 34 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 circumstances, conviction recorded against the
petitioner under Section 304-A and 337 of IPC is hereby affirmed. However,
considering facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that since the
petitioner has already suffered jail incarceration of three and half months, he
is facing trial since 1991 i.e. for about 34 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9653
4 CRR-132-2007
On the basis of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
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
