Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 276 (MP)

Krishnamurari v. State of M. P.

2009-02-27

S.S.DWIVEDI

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. The applicant has filed this revision under section 397 of CrPC aggrieved by the appellate judgment dated 16.12.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chachoda, district Guna in Criminal Appeal No. 243/08; whereby affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15.5.2008 passed by JMFC Chachoda in Criminal Case No. 537/ 06; wherein the applicant has been found guilty for the offence under section 304A of IPC and sentenced to one year RI with a fine of Rs. 4,000/-. In default of payment of fine, further ordered to suffer imprisonment for three months. 2. Brief facts of the case are, on 12.6.2006 the applicant-accused was driving the vehicle Jeep bearing No. MP-07-H 9471 rash and negligently, due to which the passenger namely Mathuralal who was sitting at the back of the seat of the vehicle and fell down from the jeep and sustained grievous injuries, during treatment he died in the hospital. The matter was reported to the police station Kumbhraj, district Guna, on which basis, police had registered a case under section 304A of IPC and memo for PM examination of the deceased Mathuralal had been issued and the concerned Doctor has performed the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased Mathuralal. During investigation, the statements recorded, arrested the accused, after investigation the charge sheet has been filed. The learned trial Court after due appreciation of the entire evidence on record, held the applicant-accused guilty for the offence under section 304A of IPC and sentenced him as stated herein above, aggrieved by which applicant has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 243/08 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Chachoda. Appellant Court after hearing of both the parties, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, hence, this revision filed on behalf of the applicant. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Government Advocate for the State and perused the record. 4. Appellant Court after hearing of both the parties, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, hence, this revision filed on behalf of the applicant. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Government Advocate for the State and perused the record. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is not challenging the concurrent finding of conviction recorded by the Courts below, but his only prayer is that no previous criminal conduct of the applicant has been proved by the prosecution, he also remained in jail (from 16.12.2008 to 31.12.2008) and he is facing this trail since 2006, three years had already passed, the incident had taken place in the unavoidable circumstances, in view of that, prayed for just reduction of the jail sentence. 5. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent-State supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of the revision. 6. As before this Court, the concurrent finding of conviction of the applicant under section 304A of IPC has not been challenged, hence, the aforesaid finding of conviction is hereby affirmed. 7. With regard to sentence is concerned, admittedly, the applicant is facing trial since 2006, three years had already passed and no previous criminal conduct of the applicant-accused has been proved by the prosecution, applicant-accused has also remained in jail (from 16.12.2008 to 31.12.2008). The accident was not made in front of the jeep due to fall of the passenger from behind the back door of the jeep concerned. In such circumstances, the jail sentence of one year RI appears to be excessive, hence, this can be reduced to the period undergone by the applicant in jail with some enhancement of the fine amount. 8. Resultantly, the revision petition filed by the applicant is allowed in part. The conviction of the applicant under section 304A of IPC is affirmed, but the sentence of one year RI with a fine of Rs. 4,000/- is set aside and instead thereof, the applicant is sentenced to the period undergone by him in jail (16.12.2008 to 31.12.2008) with fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he will suffer further imprisonment for three months. 9. The applicant has already deposited fine of Rs. 4,000/- in the trial Court, in that case, the remaining fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he will suffer further imprisonment for three months. 9. The applicant has already deposited fine of Rs. 4,000/- in the trial Court, in that case, the remaining fine of Rs. 6,000/- be deposited by the applicant within three months from the date of this judgment, failing which the trial Court may send him jail for serving jail sentence awarded to him in default of fine. Applicant is on bail, his bail bond shall stand discharged after deposit of the aforesaid enhanced fine amount. 10. Out of total realized fine amount of Rs. 10,000/-, a sum of Rs. 9,000/- be paid to the wife of deceased Mathuralal if available, if not available to his son. 11. With this modification in the sentence, the appeal stands disposed of.