Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 582 (MP)

Hansraj Singh Yadav v. State of M. P.

2025-09-08

AMIT SETH

body2025
ORDER 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the rival parties, matter is heard finally. 2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the judgment dated 31.10.2011 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, District Bhind (M.P.) in criminal appeal No. 279/2011, which was preferred under section 33 of Village Court Adhiniyam, whereby, the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, District Bhind affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.7.2011 passed in criminal case No. 95/2010 by Judicial Officer, Village Court, Janpad Bhind (M.P.), whereby, the petitioner was convicted under section 279 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 500/- and under section 338 of IPC sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo 1-1 month additional imprisonment. It has further been directed that both the sentences will run concurrently. 3. The facts in brief to decide this petition are that the complainant H.C. Omvir Singh Tomar has lodged report at police station Umari, District Bhind stated therein that on 09/05/2004, the complainant along with police force boarded in a Commander Jeep bearing registration No. M.P. 07 H – 4141 and were doing patrolling at Nunhata Shikata Voting Centre in regard to Loksabha Election and the said Jeep was driven by the petitioner in rash and negligent manner and as soon as they reached at Shikata turning, at that time, the said Jeep turned turtle, due to which, the victim sustained injuries. On the basis of aforesaid, an FIR bearing Crime No. 62/2004 was registered at police station Umari, District Bhind for the offence punishable under section 279, 337, 338 of IPC. On lodging of F.I.R., criminal law was triggered and set in motion, the injured were sent for medical examination, recorded the statements of the eye-witnesses; prepared the spot map; arrested the accused person and after completion of all due formalities, the charge sheet was submitted before the competent Court having criminal jurisdiction. 4. Learned trial Court after conclusion of trial, convicted the accused / petitioner for the offence punishable under section under section 279 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 4. Learned trial Court after conclusion of trial, convicted the accused / petitioner for the offence punishable under section under section 279 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 500/- and under section 338 of IPC sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo 1-1 month additional imprisonment, which was affirmed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, District Bhind (M.P.) vide judgment dated 31.10.2011 passed in criminal appeal No. 279/2011. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgement dated 31.10.2011 passed in criminal appeal No. 279/2011, the accused / petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the accused/petitioner argued that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case. It is further argued that there are omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It is further submitted that prosecution has not examined any independent witness, but only interested witnesses have been examined. It is further argued that petitioner aged about 57 years is facing the criminal proceedings from the date of incident i.e. 09/05/2004 to till date and is suffering physically and mentally for the same and has already served total imprisonment of Twenty days out of total awarded jail sentence of Six months. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments delivered by the Apex Court in the case of V.K. Verma v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2014) 3 SCC 485 , in the case of Surendran v. Sub – Inspector of Police reported in AIR 2021 SC 3197 and also in the case of Rameshwar Singh v. State of M.P. delivered by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.1.2023 passed in Cr.R. No. 819/2009. On these grounds, it is prayed that the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed and the judgment of conviction deserves to be set aside. 6. In alternative leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was in jail from 31.10.2011 to 18.11.2011 and the jail sentence was suspended by this Court vide order dated 18.11.2011. On these grounds, it is prayed that the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed and the judgment of conviction deserves to be set aside. 6. In alternative leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was in jail from 31.10.2011 to 18.11.2011 and the jail sentence was suspended by this Court vide order dated 18.11.2011. It is submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the fact that petitioner has already served substantive part of jail sentence, the same may be reduced to the period already undergone and the amount of fine may reasonably be enhanced. 7. Learned counsel for respondent / State submits that after due appreciation of evidence, learned Courts below have found the offence proved against the petitioner, which requires no interference. It is submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. 8. From perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that no illegality has been committed by the learned Courts below in convicting the petitioner, hence the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Courts below require no interference and is hereby maintained. 9. The apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar v. State (Delhi Administration) reported in (1980) 2 SCC 282 has held as under:- “the commission of offence of theft was committed in 1971 and the judgment of this Court was delivered in 1980. The conviction was under section 411 IPC. This Court having regard to the purpose of punishment and "the long protracted litigation", reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the convict.” 10. The apex Court in the case of Sharvan Kumar v. State Of Uttar Pradesh reported in (1985) 3 SCC 658 has held as under:- “the commission of offence was in 1968 and the judgment was delivered in 1985. The conviction was under sections 467 and 471 IPC. In that case also, the long delay in the litigation process was one of the factors taken into consideration by this Court in reducing the sentence to the period already undergone.” 11. Similarly, the apex Court in the case of Surendran v. Sub – Inspector of Police reported in AIR 2021 SC 3197 has held as under:- “10. The incident took place on 16.2.1995 i.e. more than 26 years ago. It appears that appellant was throughout on the bail. Similarly, the apex Court in the case of Surendran v. Sub – Inspector of Police reported in AIR 2021 SC 3197 has held as under:- “10. The incident took place on 16.2.1995 i.e. more than 26 years ago. It appears that appellant was throughout on the bail. The trial Court after marshalling the evidence has recorded the conviction under section 279, 338 and awarded sentence of imprisonment of six months and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under section 337. 11. We do not find any error in conviction recorded by the Trial Court. The conviction of appellant is affirmed, however, looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case specially the fact that 26 years have elapsed from the incident, we are inclined to substitute the sentence of six months imprisonment under section 279 and 338 into fine. Six months sentence under section 279 and 338 IPC are substituted by fine of Rs.1000/- each whereas sentence of fine under section 337 IPC is maintained." 12. So far as the period of sentence is concerned and the nature of offence and the fact that petitioner who is aged about 57 years is facing the criminal proceedings since 2004 and the purpose would be served in case the jail sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the amount of fine is hereby enhanced upto Rs. 1,000/- for offence under section 279 of IPC and Rs. 1,000/- for offence under section 338 of IPC, total enhanced amount is Rs. 2,000/-. 13. In the result, this writ petition is partly allowed. The findings of conviction are hereby maintained with the modification to the extent that the jail sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone subject to depositing additional fine amount of Rs. 1,300/- within a period of two months, failing which, the petitioner shall suffer jail sentence awarded by the learned Court below. Petitioner is on bail. His bail bond stands discharged. 14. With the aforesaid modification, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Certified Copy as per rules.