Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nirbhay @ Sonu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 October, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25587
1 CRR-225-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 10th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 225 of 2015
NIRBHAY @ SONU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Prasun Kumar Maheshwari - Advocate for petitioner from Legal
Aid.
Shri Puran Kumar Kulshreshtha - Additional Advocate General for
respondent/State.
ORDER
Today nobody has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. This criminal
revision is pending since 2015, therefore, in the interest of justice, Shri
Prasun Kumar Maheshwari, Advocate, who is present in the Court and his
name is in the panel of Legal Aid Committee, Gwalior, is appointed as
counsel for the petitioner.
2. With consent of both the parties, matter is heard finally at motion
hearing stage itself.
3. The petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision under Section
397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short
'Cr.P.C.') being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 03.03.2015
passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Criminal Appeal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25587
2 CRR-225-2015
No.20/2013, whereby the judgment of conviction and sentenced dated
26.12.2012 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kolaras, District
Shivpuri in Criminal Case No.639/2007 has been affirmed, wherein
petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Sections 338 (2 count),
337 (7 count) and 279 of IPC and sentenced to suffer 6 months RI with fine
of Rs.1,000/-, 3 months RI and 3 months RI with usual default stipulation.
4. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 03.05.2007 when complainant
Mukesh along with Radha Bai, Tijiya Bai, Guddi, Suman, Arvind and
Ramsewak was travelling in a Jeep bearing Registration No. MP08-F-9331
from Deharda Tiraha to Amhara. As soon as Jeep reached Anantpur in front
of house of Chandrabhan, petitioner/accused drove the Jeep rashly and
negligently causing the Jeep overturn, resulting in several injuries to the
complainant and other victim persons. Accordingly, the offence has been
registered.
5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed
before the Trial Court, who has framed the charges under Sections 279, 337
(7 count) and 338 (2 count) of IPC. Petitioner/accused abjured his guilt and
pleaded complete innocence. Prosecution has examined as many as 10
witnesses before the Trial Court, while defence did not examine any witness.
6. The Trial Court after considering the submissions advanced by both
the parties and scrutinizing entire evidence available on record, convicted the
petitioner for the aforesaid offence. Being aggrieved by the said conviction
and sentence, the petitioner has preferred a Criminal Appeal before the
Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri, but the appeal has been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25587
3 CRR-225-2015
dismissed by upholding the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial
Court. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, petitioner has
preferred this Criminal Revision before this Court.
7. The petitioner has preferred present Revision on several grounds,
but during the course of the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner does not want to press this Criminal Revision on merit
and is not assailing the conviction and sentence part of the judgment. He has
confined his argument only to the extent of quantum of the sentence and his
sole prayer is that the imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to the period
already undergone by him, as the petitioner is facing trial for last 18 years
and he has suffered jail incarceration from 03.03.2015 to 18.03.2015 (16
days) and he has no criminal past, therefore, his jail sentence be reduced to
the period already undergone.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the
revision and prays for its rejection by submitting that both the Courts below
have rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner and the sentence in
question is sufficient.
9. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
10. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner, although the conviction has not been challenged, but bare perusal
of the evidence available on record also justifies the judgments of conviction
passed by both the Courts below.
11. So far as the quantum of jail sentence is concerned, the
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner appear to be just and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25587
4 CRR-225-2015
proper. Petitioner has suffered jail incarceration for 18 days. At the time of
incident petitioner was a man of 31 years of age and now turned more than
42 years of age. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate
to reduce the jail sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
12. Considering the aforesaid, the revision is partly allowed by
maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, but reducing his jail sentence to
the period already undergone by him. The fine amount imposed by the Trial
Court upon the petitioner is hereby affirmed.
13. Petitioner is on bail. His surety and bail bond stands discharged.
14. The order pronounced by the Trial Court regarding compensation
to the victim persons is also hereby affirmed.
15. A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Legal Aid
Committee, Gwalior to pass formal order regarding appointment and
payment of counsel fee to the concerned Advocate through Legal Aid in
accordance with rules.
16. Record of the Appellate Court has been received but the record of
the Trial Court is not received.
17. Let the record of the Appellate Court be returned along with copy
of this order for information and necessary compliance.
18. Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Abhi
