Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 493 (MP)

Munnalal v. State of M. P.

2006-04-04

S.A.NAQVI

body2006
ORDER 1. Petitioner Munnalal preferred this criminal revision aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 7.10.1999 passed by 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 111/99, whereby confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 5546/91 dated 8.7.1999, whereby the petitioner has been convicted under sections 304-A, 279 and 337 of IPC and sentenced to six months RI and fine of Rs. 3,000/- under section 304A of IPC and fine Rs. 300/- under section 337 of IPC. 2. In brief the prosecution case is that on 21.8.1991 petitioner drove a tanker bearing No. MP-G-9619 rashly and negligently and dashed to M80 MP-07-4402 and caused injuries to Suraj Singh, Suresh Singh and Gulab Singh. Dehati Nalishi has been lodged in J.A. Hospital, Lashkar, Gwalior. Injured persons were medically examined. Suraj Singh succumbed to injuries. Case under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC has been registered and a charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner after completion of trial. 3. Trial Court framed charges under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC. Prosecution examined Gulabchand (PW 1), Suresh (PW 2), Ramkishan (PW 3), Ramkishan Yadav (PW 4), Pooran (PW 5) and Prem Singh (PW 6). After completion of trial and hearing both the parties, learned trial Court passed the judgment on 8.7.1999 and convicted the petitioner under sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC and sentenced him to pay fine Rs. 300/- under section 337 of IPC and to undergo six months RI and fine Rs. 3,000/- under section 304-A of IPC. Trial Court acquitted the petitioner of the offence under section 338 of IPC. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 111/99 in the Court of 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior. Appellate Court after hearing both the parties passed the judgment impugned on 7.10.1999 and confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court. 4. Aggrieved by impugned judgment dated 7.10.1999, petitioner preferred this criminal revision on the ground that learned both the Courts below committed illegality in passing the impugned judgment. Learned both the Courts below have not appreciated the prosecution evidence properly and came to the wrong conclusion that accident occurred due to negligent driving of tanker No. MP-07-4402 by petitioner. 4. Aggrieved by impugned judgment dated 7.10.1999, petitioner preferred this criminal revision on the ground that learned both the Courts below committed illegality in passing the impugned judgment. Learned both the Courts below have not appreciated the prosecution evidence properly and came to the wrong conclusion that accident occurred due to negligent driving of tanker No. MP-07-4402 by petitioner. Learned trial Court committed illegality in convicting the petitioner under sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC. In appeal preferred prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial Court. 5. Learned panel lawyer supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of revision petition. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner Shri T.C. Bansal submitted that he does not want to challenge the finding of conviction of learned appellate Court as well as learned trial Court under sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC. 6. I have gone through the impugned judgment, evidence arid depositions of prosecution witnesses supplied by learned counsel for the petitioner. Looking to the facts and evidence of prosecution, I am of the opinion that prosecution has succeeded in proving the offence under sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, finding of conviction passed by learned trial Court and appellate Court under sections, 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC is hereby confirmed. 7. Placing reliance on [1995 (1) MPWN SN 95] Jafar Khan v. State of M.P. [ 2003 (I) MPWN 9 = 2003 (1) MPHT 7 (NOC)] Majeed Khan v. State of M.P. and [1973 SCC (Cri) 770, Jagdish Chander v. State of Delhi learned counsel for petitioner Shri T.C. Bansal submitted that incident took place on 21.8.1991 and petitioner is facing trial since August, 1991. He has undergone eight days imprisonment and he has deposited the fine amount Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 300/-. He be sentenced to already undergone by him and fine awarded by learned trial Court. 8. Learned panel lawyer submitted that if petitioner is released on the sentence already undergone, fine amount be enhanced. 9. On the date of incident, age of the petitioner Munnalal was 35 years. Incident occurred on 21.8.1991 and he is facing trial more than 15 years. He has faced marathon trial and mental agony for such a long period. 8. Learned panel lawyer submitted that if petitioner is released on the sentence already undergone, fine amount be enhanced. 9. On the date of incident, age of the petitioner Munnalal was 35 years. Incident occurred on 21.8.1991 and he is facing trial more than 15 years. He has faced marathon trial and mental agony for such a long period. This criminal revision is pending since 1999 and petitioner is appearing regularly before the Registrar of this Court as ordered by the Court. On going through the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, the circumstances in which the collision between the moped (M-80) and the tanker of the petitioner occurred seems prima facie to suggest that both drivers of the vehicles have been blamed. In the facts and circumstances of the case to send the petitioner back to Jail to serve out the sentence of six months after 16 years seems to be highly unjust for the kind of offence which has been upheld against him by the two Courts below. It is unlikely to have any reformatory affect on him. Harassment of a criminal trial for more than 15 years and the expense which he must have incurred in my opinion can be taken into account when considering the question of sentence to be imposed by this Court at this point of time. Petitioner is said to have served out only 8 days of imprisonment but on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances and facts of the case, I think it would be just and proper to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone but to increase the sentence of fine from Rupees 3,000/- (Rs. three thousand) to Rupees 5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand) under section 304A of IPC and from Rupees 300/- (Rs. Three hundreds) to Rupees 500/ (Rs. Five hundreds under section 337 of IPC. Consequently, revision petition is partly allowed. The jail sentence awarded by trial Court is set aside. Petitioner Munnalal is sentenced to already undergone sentence under section 304-A of IPC and fine amount is enhanced from Rs. 3,000/- (Rs. Three thousand) to Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand) and fine amount is enhanced from Rs. 300/- (Rs. Three hundreds) to Rs. 500/- (Rs. Five hundreds) under section 337 of IPC. In default, he will suffer simple imprisonment of two months and one month, respectively. Fine amount of Rs. 3,000/- (Rs. Three thousand) to Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand) and fine amount is enhanced from Rs. 300/- (Rs. Three hundreds) to Rs. 500/- (Rs. Five hundreds) under section 337 of IPC. In default, he will suffer simple imprisonment of two months and one month, respectively. Fine amount of Rs. 3,300/- is stated to have been deposited by the petitioner, remaining amount of Rs. 2,200/- shall be deposited by the petitioner within two months from today, failing which petitioner shall undergo RI of six months as awarded by the trial Court. Revision petition is partly allowed and disposed of and judgment of appellate Court is modified to the extent as indicated above. Bail bonds are discharged.