Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Yadav vs State Of M.P on 3 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC
2026:MPHC-GWL:4173
1 W.P.No.6485 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
WRIT PETITION No. 6485 of 2012
RAKESH YADAV
Versus
STATE OF M.P
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Vineet Saxena - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Sanjay Singh Kushwaha - Government Advocate for the State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------
Reserved on : 29.01.2026
Delivered on : 03.02.2026
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------
ORDER
1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard.
2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred eferred by the petitioner assailing the judgment dated 29.08.2012 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhind (M.P.) in Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 03-02-2026 18:51:55 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC 2026:MPHC-GWL:4173 2 W.P.No.6485 of 2012 Criminal Appeal No.136/2012, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was partly allowed by setting aside his conviction ction under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"),, however, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 338 of IPC and the sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-
Rs.500/ was affirmed.
3. The facts in brief to decide this petition are that on 05.10.2009 at about 3:00 PM, an accident involving a Mahindra Max vvehicle ehicle bearing registration No.MP-30/T-0126 had occurred, occurred, as a result of which the complainant sustained injuries. On the basis ofaforesaid, of d, an FIR bearing Crime No.425/2009 was registered at police station Dehat, District - Bhind (M.P.) for offences punishable under Sections 279 279, 337 and 338 of IPC.
IP After completion of investigation, charge charge-sheet sheet was filed before the Judicial Officer, Village Court, Court Janpad - Bhind (M.P.). The Village Court after conclusion of trial,, vide judgment dated 02.04.2012, convicted the accused/petitioner petitioner under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment for each offence ffence along with a fine of Rs.500/- for each offence. In appeal, the Sessions Judge set aside the conviction under Section 279 of the IPC but affirmed the conviction and sentence under Section 338 of the IPC IPC.. Being aggrieved by the impugned Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 03-02-2026 18:51:55 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC 2026:MPHC-GWL:4173 3 W.P.No.6485 of 2012 judgment dated 29.08.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.136/2012, No.136/2012 the accused/petitioner has filed the instant writ petition petition.
4. Learned counsel for the accused/petitioner argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and that the Courts below have failed to t properly appreciate the evidence on record. He further argues that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses witnesse no independent witness has supported the prosecution case. It is further argued that the accused/petitioner /petitioner is facing the criminal proceedings from the date of incident i.e., 2009 to till date and is suffering physically and mentally for the same and had deposited the fine amount before the Trial Court and had remained in jail for the period from 29.08.2012 29.08.2012 to 06.09.2012 out of total awarded jail sentence of three months by the Sessions Court Court. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the accused/petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Surendran v. Sub Inspector of Police passed in Criminal Appeal No. 536 of 2021 2021, in the case of Banti Kumar v. State of MP &ors. delivered by the Co-ordinate Co Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.08.2023 passed in W.P. No. 13774 of 2023, in the case of Santosh Sahu v. State of M.P. delivered by the Principal Seat at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh High Court vide order dated 15.06.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No. 1013 of 2023, in the case of Mahaviri v. Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 03-02-2026 18:51:55 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC 2026:MPHC-GWL:4173 4 W.P.No.6485 of 2012 State of M.P. delivered by the Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court vide order dated 28.11.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No. 368 of 2014. It is therefore prayed that the writ petition filed by the accused/petitioner deserves to be allowed and the judgment of conviction deserves to be set aside.
5. In alternative, tive, the learned counsel for the accused/petitioner also submits that the accused/petitioner was in jail for the period from 29.08.2012 to 06.09.2012 and the jail sentence was suspended by this Court vide order dated 06.09.2012. It is thus submitted that considering the nature of the offence and the fact that the petitioner has already served 9 days of jail sentence and the long time spent in litigation, his quantum of sentence be reduced to the period already undergone and the amount of fine may reasonablyy be enhanced.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the writ petition and submitted that both the Courts below have accurately appreciated the evidence on record and have found the offence proved against the petitioner, which requires no interference interference. Accordingly, itt is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent/State that writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed dismissed.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 03-02-2026 18:51:55 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC 2026:MPHC-GWL:4173 5 W.P.No.6485 of 2012
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. At the very outset and after after perusing the record, this Court is of the view that so far as the finding of conviction under Section 338 of IPC is concerned, no illegality warranting interference has been found to be committed by the Sessions Judge vide the impugned judgment dated 29.08.2012. Thus, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 338 of IPC by the Sessions Court in appeal requires no interference and is hereby maintained.
9. The Apex Court in the case of Surendran v. Sub-Inspector Inspector of Police (supra) has held as under: -
"9. The judgment of this Court in Prakash Chandra Agnihotri (Supra) as relied by learned counsel for the appellant does support his submissions. In the above case, the accused was convicted and sentenced for six months under Section 304A. This Court conve converted the sentence of imprisonment into fine of Rs.500/ Rs.500/-.. The Court was of the view that it would be harsh to send the appellant to the Jail after 18 years of the occurrence. Following was observed in paragraph 1 of the judgment judgment:
"1. The Courts below have maintained the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-A 304 A Indian Penal Code.
We have gone through the judgments of courts below and we find no infirmity therein. We uphold the conviction. The occurrence took place on February 18 18,, 1972. The appellant has throughout been on bail. He has been Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 03-02-2026 18:51:55 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC 2026:MPHC-GWL:4173 6 W.P.No.6485 of 2012 sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.250. We are of the view that it would be rather harsh to send the appellant to jail after 18 years of the occurrence. The ends of justice would be met if the appellant is asked to pay a fine of Rs.2000/ Rs.2000/-.. The sentence is thus converted to a fine of Rs.2000/-.
Rs.2000/ . On realisation the amount shall be paid to the family of the deceased girl. The amount be deposited with the Trial Court within within two months from today and the trial court shall disburse the same to the parents of the girl and in absence of the parents to the next of kin of the girl. In default of the payment of fine the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for six months months."
10. Thee incident took place on 16.02.1995 i.e. more than 26 years ago. It appears that appellant was 5 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 337 337.
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 presen presentt 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."
maintained [Emphasis Supplied] Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 03-02-2026 18:51:55 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC 2026:MPHC-GWL:4173 7 W.P.No.6485 of 2012
10. In the case of Santosh Sahu v. State of M.P. (supra), the Principal Bench at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh High Court has held as under:
"11. As far as the findings of conviction of applicant under section 279 and 338 of IPC by the courts below are concerned, no illegality or infirmity is found in the findings so recorded. Thus, the findings of conviction recorded by the courts below against the the applicant does not warrant interference.
12. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, it is undisputed that at the time of commission of offence, applicant was only 19 years old young boy. He is first offender. He has already suffered three monthss incarceration. Therefore, having taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it is a case in which applicant's sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him so far. Consequently, this revision is allowed on the point of sentence imposed under section 338 of IPC only. Hence, the quantum of sentence is reduced from six months SI to the period already undergone by him so far with fine as imposed by the courts below below.
[Emphasis Supplied]
11. Therefore, re, as regards as the sentence, it is not in dispute that the incident pertains to the year 2009 and the petitioner has been facing criminal proceedings for more than a decade. It is also borne out from the record that the petitioner has already undergone a part of the sentence and the fine f amount has been deposited. The Supreme Court in Surendran v. Sub-
Sub Inspector of Police (supra) has held that where a long period has elapsed Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 03-02-2026 18:51:55 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC 2026:MPHC-GWL:4173 8 W.P.No.6485 of 2012 since the incident, the ends of justice would be met by substituting the sentence of imprisonment with fine fine. Accordingly, rdingly, it will be in the interest of justice that the jail sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone, that is, from 29.08.2012 to 06.09.2012. However, the amount of fine is enhanced enhance upto Rs.1,000/- for the offence under unde Section 338 of IPC, and nd total enhanced amount is Rs.1,000 Rs. only.
12. Accordingly, this writ petition stands partly allowed. The finding of conviction under Section 338 of IPC is 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 addit fine amount of Rs.500/- within a period of two months, failing which, the petitioner shall suffer jail sentence awarded by the learned Court below. Petitioner oner is on bail. His bail bond stands discharged.
13. With the aforesaid modification, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.
14. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand closed.
closed (AMIT SETH) JUDGE AK/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KUMAR Signing time: 03-02-2026 18:51:55