Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 878 (MP)

Majeed Khan v. State of M. P.

2002-09-19

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2002
ORDER 1. The accused-applicant, by this revision petition, has assailed the judgment and sentence dated 6.12.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Appeal No. 128/96 whereby the judgment of conviction passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Berasiya dated 30.7.1996 passed in Criminal Case No. 827/80 convicting the accused-applicant for the offence punishable under section 304A IPC sentencing for one year RI and fine Rs. 2,000/- in default further three months simple imprisonment, has been confirmed. 2. The mutation of exhaustive statement of facts are not necessary, as Shri Qamruddin, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, has confined his argument in regard to quantum of sentence only. According to him, the incident occurred on 10.11.1979, and it will not be desirable to send the applicant in jail after a long lapse of nearabout 23 years, he has placed reliance upon Jahar Khan v. State of M.P. [ 1995 (I) MPWN 95 ]. 3. In brief, the case of prosecution is that in the afternoon of 10.11.1979 the deceased-Bhanwarlal along with his son Kamal (PW 5) was standing nearby 'Tarawali Jod', at that time a bus came and Kamal Singh entered in it, the deceased Bhanwarlal was passing the basket of vegetables to Kamal, at this juncture, one scooter, being driven by the accused-applicant rashly and negligently, came and hit the deceased. The deceased, fell down and sustained umpteen injuries on his head, left ear and teeth etc. The deceased was sent to Hamidia Hospital where he died. 4. Kamal Singh (PW 5) lodged the FIR (Ex. P-2), accordingly the criminal law set in motion. The police registered the case under section 304A, IPC against the accused-applicant. The dead body of Bhanwarlal was sent for post-mortem on 11.11.1979. Autopsy Surgeon Dr. K.C. Dubey (PW 11) conducted the post-mortem, his report is Ex. P-6. The accused was arrested and after the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Berasia. 5. The learned trial Judge framed charge punishable under section 304A, IPC and the applicant abjured the guilt. The prosecution thereafter examined as many as 16 witnesses to prove the guilt. The defence of the applicant is that he is innocent, however, he did not choose to adduce any evidence in defence. 6. 5. The learned trial Judge framed charge punishable under section 304A, IPC and the applicant abjured the guilt. The prosecution thereafter examined as many as 16 witnesses to prove the guilt. The defence of the applicant is that he is innocent, however, he did not choose to adduce any evidence in defence. 6. The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence and other material on record, arrived at a finding that the accused-applicant did commit the offence punishable under section 304A, IPC and consequently passed the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The learned trial Judge directed that 50% of the amount of fine be paid to the son of the deceased, Kamal Singh (PW 5). 7. The accused-applicant, feeling himself aggrieved by the said judgment and sentence, filed criminal appeal before the Sessions Judge who by the impugned judgment and sentence confirmed the judgment and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge and dismissed the appeal. 8. Shri Qamruddin, learned counsel for the applicant states that the scope of revision is limited, he has confined his argument in regard to the quantum of sentence. According to him more than two decades had passed and it will not be desirable to send the accused-applicant to jail. The applicant had suffered 8 days in custody. The fine had already been deposited, at present the age of applicant is more than 65 years. Shri Dinesh Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer argued in support of the impugned judgment and contended that the sentence should not be interfered with. 9. After hearing rival contentions of both the parties, I am of the opinion that the revision deserves to be allowed in part. Admittedly the incident occurred on 10.11.1979, today the age of applicant is more than 65 years. Looking to the cumulative effect of circumstances, I consider that ends of justice would be fully met if the accused-applicant is awarded sentence of 8 days, which according to the learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant has already undergone. However, it will be justifiable to enhance the amount of fine to meet the ends of justice. 10. Accordingly, it is directed that applicant be released for the period already undergone, however, the amount of fine is increased from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 4,000/-. The applicant is directed to deposit the difference of fine Rs. However, it will be justifiable to enhance the amount of fine to meet the ends of justice. 10. Accordingly, it is directed that applicant be released for the period already undergone, however, the amount of fine is increased from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 4,000/-. The applicant is directed to deposit the difference of fine Rs. 2,000/- within three months from today, failing which the judgment and sentence passed by learned Courts below shall stand. 11. Revision is partly allowed. Sentence is modified.