Vikram vs State of Madhya Pradesh

S.R. Waghmare, J.—By this revision filed u/s 397 read with 401 of the Cr.P.C. challenge is to the judgment dated 26/8/2013 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge Barwani in Cri.A.No. 139/2012 convicting the accused petitioner Vikram for offence under Sections 337(8 counts), 338(2 counts) and 304-A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo one year R.I. with fine of Rs. 4,000/-,@ Rs. 500/- per count, Rs. 2,000/- @ Rs. 1,000/- per count and Rs. 1,000/- respectively. In case of default of payment of fine he was to undergo additional five days'' and 10 days'' R.I. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on the date of incident i.e. on 31/3/1999 the petitioner was driving a jeep bearing registration No.MP 04-H-4887 in which other persons were sitting. They were going from Sendhwa to Asarapani at that time the jeep met with an accident and turned turtle, as a result of which eight passengers got simple injuries, two passengers got grievous injuries and one passenger Raliya died. The matter was reported by complainant Barku at police station Sendhwa. After completion of investigation, the accused was duly charged for offence under Sections 279, 337(8 counts), 338 (2 counts) and 304-A of the IPC and committed to his trial.

Accused/petitioner abjured his guilt and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the matter. However, on the basis of the evidence on record, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offence as herein above indicated. Hence, the present petition.

Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that both the Courts below had erred in convicting the accused since the accident took place due to the other vehicle, which was coming from the opposite side and jeep turned turtle to give side to the oncoming vehicle and the jeep rolled over. Complainant Barku has clearly stated that there were big potholes on the road and it was a single road and it was not the negligence was not of the accused, but a pure accident due to the bad road. All the witnesses viz. Sumla P.W. 2, Sheela P.W. 3 and Omkar P.W. 7 have clearly deposed that the negligence was not of the accused alone. Counsel prayed that the petition deserves to be allowed and the judgment of conviction deserves to be set aside. In alternate Counsel prayed that if the Court was satisfied regarding the conviction, the custodial sentence be reduced to the period already undergone (approximately three months).

Learned Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has submitted that the judgment of both the Courts below are in accordance with law and do not require any interference, Hence, Counsel prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

On considering the above submissions and on perusal of the record, I find that the impugned judgment of the Courts below are based on valid and cogent reasons and proper marshalling of evidence and there was no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the trial Court. I have no hesitation in upholding the conviction of the accused for offence u/s 337 and 338 and 304-A of the IPC. However, considering the fact that the petitioner is now facing the litigation for more than 12 years of age; and the fact that the petitioner has already undergone some part of the custodial sentence, I find that the petition needs to be allowed in the interest of justice. Therefore, the custodial sentence of petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the fine amount is further raised by Rs. 10,000/- which shall be deposited by the accused petitioner in the trial Court and out which Rs. 4,000/- be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased Raliya and Rs. 2,000/- to each of the victims, who received grievous injuries as compensation u/s 357 of the Cr.P.C. within a period of two months from the date of this judgment. On failure to pay the fine within the stipulated period the petitioner shall undergo the remaining sentence as directed by the lower Court.

With the aforesaid modification, the petition is partly allowed to the extent herein above indicated. Petitioner Vikram is in jail; he be released forthwith, if not required for any other offence under intimation in writing to this Court. The judgment shall be effective with effect from 22/10/2013. A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned lower Court for compliance immediately.