Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1003 (MP)

Pappu @ Hazarilal v. State of M. P.

2016-11-07

JARAT KUMAR JAIN

body2016
ORDER 1. This revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the CrPC has been filed against the judgment dated 9.8.2016 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Criminal Appeal No.130/2016; whereby affirmed the judgment dated 25.2.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain in Criminal Case No.3013/2016; whereby the applicant has been convicted under section 304A of the IPC and sentenced to 2 years RI and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for 15 days. 2. As per prosecution case, on 7.4.2014, at about 9.00 a.m., Neha daughter of Radheshyam aged 6 years was at brick kiln place. The applicant had driven the tractor and trolley negligently in reverse which hit Neha. Resultantly she sustained fetal injuries and died. P.S. Neelganga, Ujjain registered a Crime No.262/13 under section 304A of IPC. Dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. After completion of investigation final report has been filed against the applicant. 3. Learned Magistrate has explained the particulars of offence under section 304-A of IPC and has asked the applicant as to whether he pleads guilty or he has any defence. The applicant abjured the guilt, then the Magistrate proceeded to record evidence. Prosecution had examined 11 witnesses, however, the applicant has not adduced any evidence in his defence. 4. After hearing parties, learned Magistrate convicted the applicant for the offence under section 304A of the IPC and sentenced as aforesaid. Applicant preferred an appeal, however, the appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction as well as sentence passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved the applicant has filed this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that eye witnesses have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Only interested witnesses Seemabai (PW2) and Radheshyam (PW1), who are the parents of the deceased have supported the prosecution case. However, Radheshyam is not the eye witness and there is material contradictions in Seemabai's evidence. Thus, the Courts below have wrongly placed reliance on such evidence. Hence, conviction is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate supports the conviction. 7. Perused the record. 8. Seemabai (PW2) had supported the prosecution case. There is some minor contradictions. Her version cannot be disbelieved only on the ground that she is mother of the deceased. Hence, conviction is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate supports the conviction. 7. Perused the record. 8. Seemabai (PW2) had supported the prosecution case. There is some minor contradictions. Her version cannot be disbelieved only on the ground that she is mother of the deceased. There is no reason for false implication of the applicant. Her evidence is supported by the medical evidence and prompt FIR. There is a concurrent finding that the applicant has negligently driven the tractor and hit Neha. Hon'ble apex Court in the case of B.Nagabhushanam v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2008)5 SCC 730 , held that the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction cannot reappreciate the evidence in regard to rash and negligent driving. I am of the view that there is no reason to take a different view which is taken by the Courts below. Thus, the applicant has rightly been convicted for the offence under section 304A of the IPC. Hence, the conviction is hereby maintained. 9. At this juncture learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the conviction of the applicant is too harsh as the applicant is a first offender and his family is depend on him. Hence, the sentence be reduced upto already undergone. 10. Learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer and submits that no interference is called for by this Court. 11. Hon'ble apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Surendra Singh, reported in 2015(1) JLJ 1 SC=2015 SC 398, held that :- "undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The sentencing courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence. The court must not only keep in view the rights of the victum of the crime but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. The sentencing courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence. The court must not only keep in view the rights of the victum of the crime but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. Meagre sentence imposed solely on account of lapse of time without considering the degree of the offence will be counterproductive in the long run and against the interest of the society." 12. In view of the dictum of Hon'ble apex Court, I am of the view that the sentence passed by the courts below is proper and no interference is called for by this Court. Hence, conviction as well as sentence is hereby maintained. There is no substance in this revision. Resultantly the revision as well as I.A. No.9288/2016, second application for suspension of jail sentence is hereby dismissed. R. S. Raghuvanshi for applicant; Smt. Mamta Shandilya, Deputy Government Advocate for non-applicant/State.