Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 213 (MP)

Kasna v. State of M. P.

2021-02-23

VIVEK RUSIA

body2021
ORDER : Vivek Rusia, J. Heard on IA No. 2189/2021, an application for condonation of delay. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there was no knowledge about the dismissal of the appeal by the appellate Court as his counsel did not inform him. He came to know about it only when he was arrested on 12.12.2019. After obtaining the certified copy of the judgment passed by the appellant he has filed the present revision which is barred by 198 days, hence prays for condonation of delay in filing the revision. Although the delay explained by the applicant is not convincing, however, looking to his conviction and sentence, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the revision is hereby condoned. With consent, the revision is heard finally. 1. Applicant has filed this revision petition against the judgment dated 01.06.2019 passed by IIIrd A.S.J., Jhabua in Criminal Appeal No. 51/2018, whereby the learned appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction dated 22.02.2018 passed in Criminal Case No. 2302/15 by JMFC, Jhabua convicting the applicant under sections 279 & 338 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 3 months with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI for 1 month and RI for 6 months with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI for 1 month respectively. 2. Facts of the case in short are as under: On 16.10.2015 complainant Teru went to Kalidevi market where he received an information from his brother Jamal that when he and Janu (pillion rider) were going on a motorcycle they were dashed by a tractor driven rashly and negligently by the present applicant near village Rotla Pulia due to which they sustained injuries. He sustained injury on his head and fracture on his leg. The ambulance (108) was called and they were taken to district hospital, Jhabua. After medical examination fracture was found on his lower end of femur bone, patella bone and fibula right leg. Accordingly, an FIR was registered for the offence punishable under sections 279 & 338 IPC on 16.10.2015 in the police station Kalidevi. The applicant was arrested on 16.10.2015 and the tractor was seized from his possession. The tractor was examined by the technical expert and it was found fit for driving. After completing investigation Challan has been filed. Accordingly, an FIR was registered for the offence punishable under sections 279 & 338 IPC on 16.10.2015 in the police station Kalidevi. The applicant was arrested on 16.10.2015 and the tractor was seized from his possession. The tractor was examined by the technical expert and it was found fit for driving. After completing investigation Challan has been filed. In trial prosecution examined injured Jamal (PW/3) and eye witness Kamal (PW/4). Both of them have supported the case of the prosecution and they duly identified the present applicant. In defence the applicant did not examine any witness. After appreciating the evidence came on record vide judgment dated 22.02.2018 the applicant has been convicted and sentenced as stated herein above. Against the said judgment he preferred a criminal appeal before the Sessions judge and vide order dated 19.03.2018 the jail sentence was suspended and the appeal was fixed for final arguments. Except 25.09.2018 the applicant did not appear before the Sessions Court even at the time of final arguments. Vide judgment dated 01.06.2019 learned Additional Sessions judge has dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the applicant, hence the present revision petition before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has been falsely implicated in the case. He was driving the tractor very slowly in the market. The injured Jamal (PW/3) while driving the motorcycle rashly and negligently dashed the tractor and sustained injuries. 4. Learned Panel Lawyer supports the impugned judgments and submits that no interference is called for in the concurrent findings of the courts below. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Both the Courts below have appreciated the evidence in detail especially the evidence of PW/3 & PW/4 and came to the conclusion that the applicant has caused the accident due to which PW/3 suffered multiple fracture. The scope of interference by the High Court in the exercise of power under section 397 Cr.P.C. is very limited. The reappreciation of entire evidence and the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below are not liable to be interfered unless it is perverse and contrary to the settled principle of law and merely the second view is possible. At the time of accident the applicant was not having any driving license also, hence I do not find any merit in the revision. At the time of accident the applicant was not having any driving license also, hence I do not find any merit in the revision. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an illiterate farmer and he has no criminal antecedents. He is in custody since last two and half months. He is facing the agony of trial since 2015 and he never misused the liberty of bail, therefore, the period of sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the amount of fine. 8. It is correct that no minimum sentence is provided for the offence punishable under section 338 IPC and the sentence can be extended up to a period of 2 years. The applicant is a first offender. He has been awarded 3 months sentence under section 279 IPC, therefore, the sentence under section 338 IPC is liable to be reduced to 3 months instead of 6 months by enhancing the fine amount from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 3,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. The fine amount deposited by the applicant be paid to the injured by way of compensation. 9. With the aforesaid, the revision petition is partly allowed. 10. C.c as per rules.