Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hansraj Singh Yadav vs State Of M.P. on 8 September, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 7557 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
WRIT PETITION No. 7557 of 2011
HANSRAJ SINGH YADAV
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Dharmendra Rishishwar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K.S. Tomar Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
(Delivered on this day of _8th September, 2025)
1. With the consent of learned counsel for the rival parties, matter is heard finally.
2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been
filed by the petitioner assailing the judgment dated 31/10/2011 passed by 3 rd
Additional Sessions Judge, District Bhind (M.P.) in criminal appeal No. 279/2011,
which was preferred under section 33 of Village Court Adhiniyam, whereby, the
learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, District Bhind affirmed the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 12/07/2011 passed in criminal case No.
95/2010 by Judicial Officer, Village Court, Janpad Bhind (M.P.), whereby, the
petitioner was convicted under section 279 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 500/- and under section 338 of
IPC sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.
200/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo 1-1 month
additional imprisonment. It has further been directed that both the sentences will run
concurrently.
3. The facts in brief to decide this petition are that the complainant H.C. Omvir
Singh Tomar has lodged report at police station Umari, District Bhind stated therein
that on 09/05/2004, the complainant along with police force boarded in a Commander
Jeep bearing registration No. M.P. 07 H - 4141 and were doing patrolling at Nunhata
Shikata Voting Centre in regard to Loksabha Election and the said Jeep was driven by
the petitioner in rash and negligent manner and as soon as they reached at Shikata
turning, at that time, the said Jeep turned turtle, due to which, the victim sustained
injuries. On the basis of aforesaid, an FIR bearing Crime No. 62/2004 was registered
at police station Umari, District Bhind for the offence punishable under section 279,
337, 338 of IPC. On lodging of F.I.R., criminal law was triggered and set in
motion, the injured were sent for medical examination, recorded the statements of
the eye-witnesses; prepared the spot map; arrested the accused person and after
completion of all due formalities, the charge sheet was submitted before the
competent Court having criminal jurisdiction.
4. Learned trial Court after conclusion of trial, convicted the accused / petitioner
for the offence punishable under section under section 279 of IPC and sentenced him
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 500/- and under
section 338 of IPC sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months
with fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo
1-1 month additional imprisonment, which was affirmed by the learned 3 rd Additional
Sessions Judge, District Bhind (M.P.) vide judgment dated 31/10/2011 passed in
criminal appeal No. 279/2011. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgement dated
31/10/2011 passed in criminal appeal No. 279/2011, the accused / petitioner has filed
the instant writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the accused/petitioner argued that petitioner has falsely
been implicated in the case. It is further argued that there are omissions and
contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It is further submitted
that prosecution has not examined any independent witness, but only interested
witnesses have been examined. It is further argued that petitioner aged about 57
years is facing the criminal proceedings from the date of incident i.e. 09/05/2004 to
till date and is suffering physically and mentally for the same and has already served
total imprisonment of Twenty days out of total awarded jail sentence of Six months.
In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance
upon the judgments delivered by the Apex Court in the case of V.K. Verma vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2014) 3 SCC 485, in the case of
Surendran vs. Sub - Inspector of Police reported in AIR 2021 SC 3197 and also
in the case of Rameshwar Singh vs. State of M.P. delivered by co-ordinate Bench
of this Court vide order dated 16/01/2023 passed in Cr.R. No. 819/2009. On these
grounds, it is prayed that the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be
allowed and the judgment of conviction deserves to be set aside.
6. In alternative leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was in
jail from 31/10/2011 to 18/11/2011 and the jail sentence was suspended by this Court
vide order dated 18/11/2011. It is submitted that looking to the nature of offence and
the fact that petitioner has already served substantive part of jail sentence, the same
may be reduced to the period already undergone and the amount of fine may
reasonably be enhanced.
7. Learned counsel for respondent / State submits that after due appreciation of
evidence, learned Courts below have found the offence proved against the petitioner,
which requires no interference. It is submitted that the writ petition filed by the
petitioner be dismissed.
8. From perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that no illegality has been
committed by the learned Courts below in convicting the petitioner, hence the
judgment of conviction passed by the learned Courts below require no interference
and is hereby maintained.
9. The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar vs. State (Delhi
Administration) reported in (1980) 2 SCC 282 has held as under:-
"the commission of offence of theft was committed in 1971 and the
judgment of this Court was delivered in 1980. The conviction was
under Section 411 IPC. This Court having regard to the purpose of
punishment and "the long protracted litigation", reduced the sentence
to the period already undergone by the convict."
10. The Apex Court in the case of Sharvan Kumar vs State Of Uttar Pradesh
reported in (1985) 3 SCC 658 has held as under:-
"the commission of offence was in 1968 and the judgment was
delivered in 1985. The conviction was under Sections 467 and 471
IPC. In that case also, the long delay in the litigation process was one
of the factors taken into consideration by this Court in reducing the
sentence to the period already undergone."
11. Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Surendran vs. Sub - Inspector of
Police reported in AIR 2021 SC 3197 has held as under:-
"10. The incident took place on 16.02.1995 i.e. more than 26 years
ago. It appears that appellant was throughout on the bail. The Trial
Court after marshalling the evidence has recorded the conviction
under Section 279, 338 and awarded sentence of imprisonment of six
months and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section
11. We do not find any error in conviction recorded by the Trial Court.
The conviction of appellant is affirmed, however, looking to the facts
and circumstances of the present case specially the fact that 26 years
have elapsed from the incident, we are inclined to substitute the
sentence of six months imprisonment under Section 279 and 338 into
fine. Six months sentence under Section 279 and 338 IPC are
substituted by fine of Rs.1000/- each whereas sentence of fine
under Section 337 IPC is maintained."
12. So far as the period of sentence is concerned and the nature of offence and the
fact that petitioner who is aged about 57 years is facing the criminal proceedings
since 2004 and the purpose would be served in case the jail sentence awarded to the
petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the amount of fine is
hereby enhanced upto Rs. 1,000/- for offence under section 279 of IPC and Rs.
1,000/- for offence under section 338 of IPC, total enhanced amount is Rs. 2,000/-.
13. In the result, this writ petition is partly allowed. The findings of conviction are
hereby maintained with the modification to the extent that the jail sentence awarded
to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone subject to depositing
additional fine amount of Rs. 1,300/- within a period of two months, failing which,
the petitioner shall suffer jail sentence awarded by the learned Court below. Petitioner
is on bail. His bail bond stands discharged.
14. With the aforesaid modification, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.
Certified Copy as per rules.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Durgekar*
