Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 500 (MP)

Suresh v. State of M. P.

2012-05-08

VIMLA JAIN

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has preferred this revision under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.11.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore, in Criminal Appeal No.161/2008, arising out of the judgment dated 7.10.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate Class I, Sehore, in Criminal Case No.596/2005, whereby the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Provision Sentence u/s 279 IPC R.I. for six months. u/s 338 I.P.C. R.I. for six months. (both the sentences to run concurrently). 2. According to prosecution, the complainant was engaged in the business of selling mobile phones in Astha. On 17.3.2005, complainant Chandrashekhar who had gone to Bhopal from Astha, was returning to Astha from Bhopal on his motorcycle and a girl, named Ku.Nilu was sitting on his motorcycle as a pillion rider, at about 5 p.m. The accused Suresh, who was driving a tanker rashly and negligently, dashed the motorcycle of the complainant near village Thuna Pachma. As a result of which the complainant sustained injuries on the face, forehead, right leg, knee and around. The girl sitting along with the complainant also sustained injuries on left thigh, knee and near left eye. Dehati Nalishi, Ex.P/5, was recorded pursuant to this incident and on the basis of Dehati Nalishi, a report, Ex.P/8, was lodged at Police Station Kotwali, District Sehore. The Police registered the offence under sections 279 and 338 I.P.C. against the accused Suresh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not challenge the finding of conviction of the petitioner but confined his arguments to the point of sentence only. He submitted that the petitioner has already suffered the jail sentence of 12 days. Therefore, his case be considered sympathetically and his sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone in jail. 4. Learned counsel for the State did not oppose the prayer of the petitioner’s counsel but he submits that the fine amount should be imposed. 5. It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction cannot embark upon re-appreciation of evidence unless the finding of fact, on the face of it, is illegal and perverse. The appellate judgment affirming the finding of guilt does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction. Both the Courts below have not committed any mistake in believing the statements of prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the petitioner is rightly convicted under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC. 6. The appellate judgment affirming the finding of guilt does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction. Both the Courts below have not committed any mistake in believing the statements of prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the petitioner is rightly convicted under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC. 6. With regard to the sentence, admittedly the petitioner remained in jail for a period of 12 days. No previous criminal conduct of the petitioner has been proved by the prosecution, therefore, it appears that he is a first offender. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case and submissions made by the petitioner especially the fact that the incident is of 17.03.2005, it would not be in the interest of justice to send the petitioner back to jail to serve the remaining part of the sentence after lapse of 7 years. 7. Consequently, this criminal revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner passed by the Court below is hereby maintained, but the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him and the fine amount of Rs.2,000/- is imposed on him for both the offences under section 279 and 338 of the I.P.C. The fine amount imposed by this Court be deposited by the petitioner in the trial Court within 2 months failing which he shall undergo S.I for 3 months. 8. Out of the total fine amount, Rs.1,000/- be given to complainant Chandrashekhar and Rs.1,000/- be given to injured Ku.Nilu, under Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 9. With the aforesaid directions and modifications in the sentence, revision petition stands disposed of. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.