Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hari Vallabh Goswami vs State Of M.P. on 8 May, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10208
1 CRR-549-2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 8 th OF MAY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 549 of 2007
HARI VALLABH GOSWAMI
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Mahendra Chaudhary - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri R.S. Yadav - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
ORDER
With the consent of both the parties, matter is heard finally.
2. This criminal revision under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C has
been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by impugned judgment dated
29.6.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambah, District Morena
in Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2007 whereby the judgment dated 28/02/2007
passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambah in Criminal Case
No.30 of 2004 by which, the petitioner has been convicted under Section
304-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year RI with Fine of Rs.200/-,
with usual default stipulation, has been affirmed.
3. The prosecution story in brief is that, on 4.3.2001 at about 6:30 PM
when the complainant Lakhan Singh along with his niece Rachna parked his
jeep and standing on the side of road, at that time the present petitioner came
there by driving jeep bearing registration No.MP06/B-0290 rashly and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10208
2 CRR-549-2007
negligently and hit Rachna, due to which, Rachna died on the spot. The
incident was witnessed by Keerat Singh Narwariya and Dinesh Sakhwar and
accused fled away from the spot. Complainant Lakhan Singh has lodged an
FIR at Police Station Ambah. Postmortem of the deceased was conducted by
Dr. M.S. Tomar. Accordingly, offence has been registered against the
petitioner/accused.
4. After conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed
against the petitioner before the JMFC, Ambah who framed the charge under
section 304-A 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 the
petitioner/accused 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 affirming the judgment and decree passed by the
Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, this criminal
revision has been preferred before this Court.
5. 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 one and half months; he is facing trial since 2001 i.e. for a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10208
3 CRR-549-2007
period of almost 24 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.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent/State on the other hand supports
the impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of this revision.
7. 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 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 one and half months, he is
facing trial since 2001 i.e. for about 24 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.
8. 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".
9. The same principle has been laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Nagabhushanam Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2008) 5 SCC
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10208
4 CRR-549-2007
10. 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 justice would be met if the petitioner is sentenced
under Section 304-A of IPC to the period already undergone by him.
11. 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.
12. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court along with
the records for information and necessary compliance.
13. Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
(alok)
