High CourtsSingle Bench

Khalil Khan vs State of M.P.

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 9 October 2013 · Citation: (2013) 10 MP CK 0034

HON’BLE JUDGES
B.D. Rathi, J
RESULT
Partly Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 1779 of 2013
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 393 words

B.D. Rathi, J.—This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 30/8/2013 passed by XIV Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Cr.A. No. 860/2012 whereby the judgment dated 3/9/12 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal in Criminal Case No. 1705/2004 convicting the petitioner u/s 304A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 10.000/-, was modified. As a result, the petitioner is now required to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17/11/1996, Truck No. MH-34A-3035 was dashed by Truck No. MBB-9725 which was being rashly and negligently driven by the petitioner, leading to injuries to Driver and Conductor of the former Truck namely Sukha Singh and Dilbag Singh and subsequent death of Sukha Singh.

2.

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not want to challenge the conviction awarded to the petitioner. However, he prayed that the custodial sentence passed against the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone. According to him, the petitioner is in jail since 30/8/13.

3.

In response, learned Government Advocate while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence on record, submitted that the conviction was well merited and the impugned judgment did not warrant interference.

4.

Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, perused the records of both the Courts below.

5.

As the conviction is not under challenge, adverting to the question of sentence, it is apparent from the record that the incident took place, as early as, in the year 1996 and since then the petitioner has faced the prosecution and suffered the ordeal of trial and appeal for a considerable period of more than sixteen years. Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that on the date of incident the petitioner was aged about 26 years, interests of justice would be met if the fine sentence is reduced to Rs. 5000/-.

6.

In view of the aforesaid, impugned conviction and corresponding custodial sentence are affirmed. However, the fine amount is reduced to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand only).

7.

In the result, the revision stands allowed in part. Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.