Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 15 (CHH)

GURUCHARAN SINGH v. STATE OF M. P.

2012-01-10

PRITINKER DIWAKER

body2012
ORDER 1. The present revision arises out of the judgment and order dated 01.10.1999 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon in Criminal Appeal No. 138/97 arising out of judgment dated 13.08.1997 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dongargarh in Criminal Case No. 10 of 1995 convicting the accused/applicant under Section 304A of IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 23.12.1994 while driving the truck bearing registration No. MKT 874 the applicant dashed one Vitthal Rao causing his death. FIR (Ex. P-l) was lodged by the son of the deceased namely Sanjay Kumar (PW-l) on 23.12.1994 itself and based on this FIR offence under Section 304A of IPC was registered against the applicant. After completion of investigation Challan was filed on 30.12.1994 against the applicant for the said section. 3. So as to hold the accused/applicant guilty, prosecution has examined as many as 08 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/applicant was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charge levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. Apart from this, two witnesses namely Vijay Shrivastava (DW-l) and Jasbir Chhabra (DW-2) have been examined by the defence in support of its case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/applicant for the offence under Section 304A of IPC. In appeal, the order of the trial court has been affirmed. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the applicant submits that he is not pressing this revision as far as it relates to conviction part of the impugned judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the applicant submits that he is not pressing this revision as far as it relates to conviction part of the impugned judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. He submits that the incident had taken place on 23.12.1994, except Sanjay Kumar (PW-1) son of the deceased, Patiram (PW-2) and Ashok Kumar (PW-3) have not supported the prosecution case, now the applicant is aged about 56 years and does not keep good health and he has already remained in jail for about two months, no useful purpose would be served in sending him back to jail and it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. He however submits that the applicant is willing to pay adequate compensation to the complainant under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. To this, counsel for the State has no serious objection. 7. In view of above, the revision is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained but looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular, the incident had taken place on 23.12.1994, now the applicant is aged about 56 years and as reported does not keep good health and he has already remained in jail for about two months, Jail sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, in lieu thereof, the sentence of fine imposed by the Court below is enhanced to Rs.20,000 from that of Rs. 5,000. The applicant is directed to deposit this enhanced amount of fine before the trial Court within a period of six months from today and in turn the trial Court shall disburse the same to the legal heirs of the deceased. If the applicant fails to deposit the same within the stipulated period he shall undergo the entire sentence as imposed by the Court below. 8. Revision thus partly succeeds. Revision Partly Allowed.