Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 660 (MP)

Narendra Soni v. State of M. P.

2023-07-17

DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL

body2023
ORDER 1. This criminal revision is directed against judgement and order dated 19.1.2023, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special judge (Electricity Act No.2) Bhopal in Criminal Appeal No.546/2022 affirming the judgement and order dated 14.10.2022, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class Bhopal in Criminal Case No.2303780/2008 (State of M.P. v. Narendra Soni) convicting accused/applicant under section 304-A of IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for one year and fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 1 month. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 20.2.2008, Narendra Kumar Lodhi (PW-4) informed ASI - S.C. Mishra (PW-8) posted in P.S. Nishatpura that he runs a Betel shop in a Gumti in front of Raslakhedi at Bhopal-Vidhisha road. Today, at around 2:15 PM minor Nitin Kushwaha along with his aunt (Bua) Lata Kushwaha was going towards Bhanpur from Rasalkhedi on foot and was crossing the road. In the meantime, driver of a tanker driving his tanker rashly and negligently came from Bhopal side and hit Nitin. Nitin fell down on the road and got crushed under the wheels of the truck. He died on the spot. After incident, driver along with tanker was fleeing from the spot but his vehicle was chased by the villagers, due to which he stopped the tanker and tried to fled away but he was caught by the mob. Tanker was bearing registration No. MP09-K-8219. The tanker driver introduced himself as Narendra Soni. Thus, Narendra by driving the tanker rashly and negligently run over Nitin and caused his death. Dehati Nalisi (PW-6) was recorded. After investigation, charge sheet was filed. As per postmortem examination report Exhibit P/2, the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries to the body and duration of death was within 12 years since postmortem examination. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed for commission of offence under section 304-A of IPC. 3. Learned trial Court stated accusation of the offence of section 304- A of IPC to the accused, but he pleaded not guilty. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 10 witnesses i.e. Bhajanlal (PW-1), Lata Bai Kushwaha (PW-2), Bhallu (PW-3), Narendra Kumar Lodhi (PW-4), Munnalal (PW-5), Ramesh Choudhary (PW-6), Moro Bai (PW-7), S.C. Mishra (PW-8), Dr.Dhiraj Singh Verma (PW-9), Sundarlal Pagariya (PW-10). 5. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 10 witnesses i.e. Bhajanlal (PW-1), Lata Bai Kushwaha (PW-2), Bhallu (PW-3), Narendra Kumar Lodhi (PW-4), Munnalal (PW-5), Ramesh Choudhary (PW-6), Moro Bai (PW-7), S.C. Mishra (PW-8), Dr.Dhiraj Singh Verma (PW-9), Sundarlal Pagariya (PW-10). 5. In defence, no witness was examined by the accused. Statement of the accused/applicant was recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges leveled against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 6. After hearing parties, learned trial Court by its judgement dated 14.10.2022, convicted and sentenced accused/applicant as mentioned herein above. Appeal was preferred challenging the judgement of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned JMFC/trial Court. Judgement of conviction and order of sentence has been affirmed by the Court of IIIrd ASJ, Bhopal by the appeal judgement under challenge. Hence, this revision. 7. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits that he is not pressing this revision on the conviction part and would confine his argument to the sentence part of the impugned judgement. He submits that applicant has already remained in jail for more than 5 months and 20 days, that the incident had taken place about 15 years back, that no criminal antecedents is against him, that applicant by now is middle aged person of 50 years, that the fine imposed by the Court below has already been deposited. Thus, keeping in view all these things, sentence imposed on him may be reduced to the period already undergone. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State, though supports the judgement impugned but he has no serious objection to the submissions regarding sentence made by learned counsel for the applicant. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. Lata Bai Kushwah has deposed that she knows Narendra Soni/ applicant, as she had seen him at the place of occurrence. It is deposed that on 22.8.2022 at around 2-2;30 PM she along with her nephew Nitin Kushwah and mother Moro bai and daughter Poonam were going to attend a marriage at Bilkhedi, in the meantime, driver of the tanker driving his tanker rashly and negligently came from the Bhopal side and run over Nitin. He died on the spot. It is deposed that on 22.8.2022 at around 2-2;30 PM she along with her nephew Nitin Kushwah and mother Moro bai and daughter Poonam were going to attend a marriage at Bilkhedi, in the meantime, driver of the tanker driving his tanker rashly and negligently came from the Bhopal side and run over Nitin. He died on the spot. It is also her deposition that at the time of incident tanker bearing registration No. MP-09-K-8219 was being rashly and negligently driven by the applicant. He was caught by the villagers. The aforesaid evidence of Lata Bai Kushwah finds corroboration from the evidence of Narendra Kumar Lodhi (PW-4), Munnalal (PW-5) and Ramesh Choudhary (PW-6). The factum of incident also stands corroborated by the evidence of Bhajan Lal (PW-1) and Moro Bai (PW-6). Lata Bai Kushwah (PW-2) and Narendra Kumar Lodhi (PW-4), Munnalal (PW-5) and Ramesh Choudhary (PW-6) have described the manner in which the accident had taken place and have submitted that after committing accident and death of Nitin, applicant along with tanker instead of stopping it had attempted to flee from the spot but was caught red handed by the villagers. The aforesaid evidence of the witnesses stands corroborated from the promptly lodged FIR, postmortem report and other material available on record. S.C. Mishra (PW-8) Investigation Officer has also duly supported the case of the prosecution, factum of death of the injured boy has been supported by Dr. Dhiraj Singh Verma (PW-9). Sunderlal Patharia (PW-10) has specifically deposed that he had mechanically examined the tanker bearing registration No. MP-09-K-8219. It was not having any mechanical fault. He has supported his mechanical examination report Exhibit P/13. 11. Thus, having gone through the evidence available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by both the Courts below convicting the applicant under section 304-A of IPC are well founded and that being so they are not required to be interfered with. 12. He has supported his mechanical examination report Exhibit P/13. 11. Thus, having gone through the evidence available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by both the Courts below convicting the applicant under section 304-A of IPC are well founded and that being so they are not required to be interfered with. 12. As regards quantum of sentence, keeping in view that the applicant has already suffered jail sentence for more than five months and 20 days, that the incident had taken place 15 years back, that no criminal antecedent is there against him, that applicant is by now a middle aged person of 50 years, that the fine amount imposed by the Courts below has already been deposited, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice if sentence of 1 year RI imposed on the applicant is reduced to the period of 5 months and 20 days already undergone by him. The fine amount imposed by the Court below has already been deposited. However, considering the provisions of section 357(3) of Cr.P.C applicant is required to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) to be given to the dependents/family members of the deceased. 13. This order would be available to the applicant/accused only after he deposits the compensation amount as directed above by this Court. Resultantly, this criminal revision stands partly allowed. Conviction under section 304-A of IPC is maintained and sentence imposed under this section is reduced to the jail period already undergone by the applicant so far. Applicant is directed to deposit the compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) within 30 days with the Court below to be paid to the dependents/family members of the deceased. It is again clarified that the benefit of this order will be subject to deposit of compensation amount imposed by this Court. 14. In case applicant fails to deposit the compensation amount he shall undergo sentence as awarded by the trial Court. This revision is disposed of accordingly. Trial Court record along with copy of this order be sent down to the Court concerned through Sessions Judge, Bhopal. 15. 14. In case applicant fails to deposit the compensation amount he shall undergo sentence as awarded by the trial Court. This revision is disposed of accordingly. Trial Court record along with copy of this order be sent down to the Court concerned through Sessions Judge, Bhopal. 15. Registry/trial Court is directed to prepare super session warrant and send it to the jail authorities with a direction that upon deposit of fine amount along with compensation amount as directed by this Court, by the applicant, he be released forthwith if not required in any other case.