Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 84 (MP)

Omprakash v. State of M. P.

2020-01-13

S.K.AWASTHI

body2020
ORDER 1. This revision petition under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") is filed against the judgment dated 5.12.2019 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bagli, District Dewas in Cri. Appeal No. 319/2015, wherein the learned Judge partly allowed the appeal by affirming the judgment of conviction for offence under section 304(A) of IPC, 1860, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bagli, District Dewas dated 10.9.2015 in Criminal Case No. 674/2007, reduced the sentenced from 1 year to 3 months R.I and maintained the fine amount and default stipulation. 2. Prosecution story in nutshell are that on 5.7.2007 at about 2.00 pm the applicant is the owner of bus body building company namely, Maa Shakti Body Builders and he was doing welding work of a bus, at that time the deceased Rajendra Puri was present inside the bus. During the welding work electric current spread over the bus and Rajendra Puri got electric shock, due to which he succumbed on the way to hospital. Applicant lodged a complaint at Police Station Haat Pipaliya regarding the death of Rajendra Puri. Police registered Dehati Nalisi and carried out investigation. 3. During investigation it was found out that the applicant carried out the welding work without switching off the earthing light, due to which the deceased, who was inside the bus got electric shock and died on the spot. The statement of the witnesses were recorded and the applicant was arrested. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. 4. Trial Court, while passing the judgment, convicted the applicant for offence under section 304(A) of IPC, 1860 and sentenced to undergo 1 year R.I, with a fine of Rs. 300/- and usual default stipulation. An appeal was filed against the said conviction and sentence, which was partly allowed vide judgment dated 5.12.2019 by the Sessions Court. This judgment is under challenge in the present revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has expressly gave up his challenge to the findings of the Courts below so far as the conviction of the applicant is concerned. In other words, the learned counsel for the applicant accepted the finding of conviction passed against the applicant, however, he challenged the quantum of punishment (3 months R.I) alone. It is further submitted that the applicant is the first offender and he is the sole earner of his family. In other words, the learned counsel for the applicant accepted the finding of conviction passed against the applicant, however, he challenged the quantum of punishment (3 months R.I) alone. It is further submitted that the applicant is the first offender and he is the sole earner of his family. It is also submitted that having regard to all circumstances which resulted in applicant's conviction and further keeping in view the fact that the applicant was facing the trial before the concerned Court for more than twelve years and has served more than one month of jail sentence therefore, he prayed that the applicant's jail sentence be reduced suitably. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent State has ubmitted that after appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, the Courts below have rightly found guilty the applicant for the aforesaid offence, therefore, no grounds are available for reducing the jail sentence awarded to the applicant, hence, he prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entire record of the case, I am inclined to allow this revision petition in part upon finding some force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. 7. Though the applicant has not made any attempt to assail the finding of the conviction on merits, yet with a view to satisfy myself as to whether the findings of the Courts below of conviction is legally sustainable or not, I perused the record and especially therein having so perused, I am satisfied that no case is made out to interfere with the findings of the Courts below on merits. From the perusal of record, commission of alleged offence by the applicant is found proved on the basis of statement of Sanjay Kumar Jain (PW2), Babloo (PW3), Chotugiri (PW4), Murari (PW5), S.R. Shrivastava (PW7) which is also corroborated with the statement of Dr.L.P. Bakoriya (PW6), FIR (Ex.P-4) and Postmortem report (Ex.P-2), I, therefore, upheld the findings of conviction under section 304(A) of IPC, 1860 recorded by the Courts below. 8. Now the question arises as to whether the applicant's sentence should be reduced and if so, to what extent as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant. 9. 8. Now the question arises as to whether the applicant's sentence should be reduced and if so, to what extent as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant. 9. So far as the period of sentence is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that looking to the fact that the applicant is the first offender, he has faced the trial for more than twelve years and already served more than 1 month of his jail sentence, therefore, this Court is of the view that the jail sentence awarded to the applicant deserves to be and is hereby reduced to a period of two months, subject to depositing additional fine of Rs. 10,000/- by the applicant. In default of payment of enhanced fine amount, the applicant shall suffer one month R.I. 10. The Registry of this Court is directed to arrange for issuance of supersession warrant against applicant-Omprakash. A copy of the judgment be sent to the Courts below along with record for information and compliance. 11. With the aforesaid modification the Criminal Revision No. 5990/2019 stands partly allowed and disposed of.