Virendra Alias Chintu vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

The applicant has filed this revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the

judgment dated 29/05/2019 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Criminal Appeal No.05/2016 whereby affirming the judgment

dated 14/07/2016 passed in Criminal Case No.1411/2010 by the Court of JMFC, Junnardev, Distt. Chhindwara thereby convicting the applicant for the

offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and sentencing him to undergo two years RI along with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.

The case of prosecution against the applicant, in short, is that on 04/12/2010 the applicant was driving the motorcycle bearing registration

No.M.P.28 M.A.5024 rashly and negligently in Village Junnardev near old Petrol Pump on public way deceased-Appu alias Aftab was crossing the

road, applicant dashed him by motorcycle. Appu alias Aftab received fatal injuries and ultimately succumbed to injuries. The matter was reported to

Police Station, Junnardev where FIR (Ex.P/1) at Crime No.362/2010 was registered and after completing the investigation filed charge sheet for the

offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of IPC against the applicant before the Court of JMFC, Junnardev, Distt. Chhindwara where

Criminal Case No.1411/2010 was registered.

Trial Court after completing the trial delivered judgment dated 14/07/2016 thereby convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section

304-A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years RI and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo one month’s additional

RI. Against that judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the applicant preferred an appeal registered as Criminal Appeal No.05/2016 before the

appellate Court. 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, after hearing both the parties, delivered the judgment dated 29/05/2019 affirming the

conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the applicant by dismissing the appeal.

Being aggrieved by the order of appellate Court and judgment of conviction and sentences passed by the trial Court, the applicant has preferred this

criminal revision on the ground that learned both the Courts below have not appreciated the evidence properly. There were so many contradictions,

improvements, omissions in the statement of witnesses. The offence against the applicant was not proved beyond doubt. In spite of this, learned Court

did not extend the benefit of doubt in favour of applicant.

Learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of respondent/State submits that there is a clear and acceptable evidence available on record to prove

the offence against the applicant. There is no need to interfere in the findings given by both the Courts below, therefore, prays for dismissal of the

revision.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence recorded before the trial Court. In this revision the applicant mainly pointed

out that both the Courts below have not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. This Court is of the view that while exercising revisional

Court, limited scope is left for appreciating the evidence as appreciated while exercising appellate jurisdiction because when the conviction and

sentence is affirmed by the appellate Court as per Section 393 of Cr.P.C. that shall attend its finality.

After perusal of the statement, this Court finds that Chasm Bano (PW-1) who is eye witness and sister of the deceased, categorically stated that

when her brother was crossing the road and reached on the side of the road, the applicant came on motorcycle driving rashly and negligently dashed

her brother Appu alias Aftab. One side of the road is a Dhaba running by the deceased and on the other side is his house where he resided. This

witness again reiterated this fact in cross-examination and stated that motorcycle was driving in high speed. In the same way Nitesh Kahar (PW-2)

supported the accident of Appu alias Aftab, Sanni (PW-3) who is also an eye witness, categorically stated that applicant was driving the motorcycle in

high speed and negligently dashed deceased-Appu alias Aftab while he was crossing the road. Injured Appu alias Aftab was shifted to hospital

thereafter he referred for further treatment to Nagpur and on the way he succumbed to injuries. Dr. S.K. Bhagulya (PW-5) conducted post-mortem

and stated that Appu alias Aftab sustained three injuries which were vital in nature. This fact suggested that Appu alias Aftab died due to injuries

caused during accident by motorcycle. There is sufficient material available on record to prove the conviction of the applicant for the offence

punishable under Section 304-A of IPC.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the deceased was also negligent for the act because in the night he was crossing the road in spite of

seeing motorcycle on the road. The applicant controlled the motorcycle and also sustained injuries in this accident. Learned trial Court punished the

applicant of maximum punishment provided under Section 304-A of IPC.

Considered the submissions of learned counsel and perused the evidence of eye witnesses. Chams Bano (PW-1) deposed that incident happened in

the evening of 7.00 to 7.15 P.M. on 04/12/2010. No doubt it is a Month of December at 7.00 to 7.15 p.m. darkness spread at that time. This witness

also deposed that when accident happened, the applicant fell down at some distance. Sanni (PW-3) who is also eye witness, deposed that it was a

dark at the time of incident. Considering this fact that the accident happened in the night and deceased was crossing road and in the spot map (Ex.P/2)

prepared by Head Constable Ramesh Kumar (PW-9), the place of accident is on the road, on these circumstances this Court finds that the sentence

imposed by the trial Court is much severe.

Looking to all these facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed above, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence of imprisonment.

Learned trial Court imposed fine to the tune of Rs.1,000/- but not compassionate/compensate the family members of the deceased. In this view of the

matter, this Court is inclined to modify this punishment.

In view of forgoing discussions, this revision is partly allowed. The conviction passed against the applicant is hereby affirmed, however, the

sentence of two years RI is hereby reduced to three month RI and the fine amount of Rs.1,000/- is hereby increased to Rs.5,000/-, in default of

payment of fine, the applicant shall suffer additional two months RI. It is also directed that after depositing the fine amount, Rs.4,000/- be given to the

wife of the deceased i.e. Naziya (PW-4).

With the aforesaid direction this petition stand disposed of with no order as to cost.