Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghuveer Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 29 August, 2017
(1) CRR 1016/2016
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
*****************
SB:- Present :- Hon'ble Shri Justice G. S. Ahluwalia
CRR 1016/2016
Raghuveer Singh
Vs.
State of MP
=======================
Shri SS Guatam, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Prakhar Dhengula, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
======================
ORDER
(Passed on 29/08/2017) This Criminal Revision under Sections 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 19-10- 2016 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar in Criminal Appeal No.128/2015, whereby affirming the judgment and sentence dated 7-11-2015 passed by J.M.F.C., Ashoknagar in Criminal Case No.991/2007, by which the applicant has been convicted under Section 337 (on two counts) and under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of three months with fine of Rs.200/- with default imprisonment for offence under Section 337 (on two counts) and for a rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 304-A of IPC, with default imprisonment.
(2) The necessary facts for the disposal of the present criminal revision in short are that according to the prosecution story, on 31-5-2007 at about 3:30 P.M., the applicant was going on his motor cycle, whereas the deceased and Rakesh Jain were coming on a different motor cycle. Both the motor cycles collided with each other, when the applicant was trying to overtake a tractor and trolley loaded with wheat husk. Dr. Sunil Jain who was standing nearby also suffered injuries. Amit Jain was declared dead whereas Rakesh Jain (P.W.1) also suffered injuries. On the report lodged by Dr. Sunil Jain, the police registered the offence and after completing the investigation, filed a charge sheet against the applicant for offence under (2) CRR 1016/2016 Sections 279,337,338,304A of I.P.C. and under Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act.
(3) The Trial Court by order dated 3-9-2007 framed charges under Sections 279, 338, 304-A of I.P.C. and under Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act.
(4) The applicant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty. (5) The Trial Court after recording evidence, convicted the applicant for offence under Section 337 (on two counts) and under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of three months and fine of Rs. 200/- on two counts for offence under Section 337 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs. 1000/- for offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C and acquitted for remaining offences.
(6) Being aggrieved by the judgment and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the applicant filed an appeal, which too has been dismissed by judgment and sentence dated 19-10-2016. (7) Challenging the Judgments passed by the Courts below, it is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant, that in fact due to rash and negligent driving of motor cycle by Sunil Jain, both the motor cycles collided with each other as a result of which he had also suffered injuries. Dr. Sunil Jain was not standing by the side of the place of accident, but he was driving the motor cycle which collided with the motor cycle of the applicant and he has been made an accused in the counter criminal case. It is further submitted that even otherwise, there is nothing on record to show that the applicant was driving the motor cycle rashly and negligently and the allegation of the witnesses that the applicant was driving the motor cycle at a high speed, itself is not sufficient to hold him guilty for the offences. It is further submitted that the incident took place in the year 2007 and more than 10 years have passed and the manner in which the incident is alleged to have taken place, the jail sentence of approximately of one month, which has been undergone by the applicant is sufficient.
(8) Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the State that according to the prosecution case, the applicant was trying to overtake a tractor and trolley which was loaded with wheat (3) CRR 1016/2016 husk and therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the applicant to ensure, that no vehicle is coming from the opposite direction. Further, it is submitted by the Counsel for the State that as the cases of accidents on road are increasing day by day, therefore, lenient view while awarding jail sentence may not be adopted.
(9) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. (10) It is well established principle of law that this Court while exercising revisional powers, should not interfere with the findings of facts unless and until they are found to be perverse or contrary to record. In the present case, Rakesh Jain (P.W.1), Hariom Sharma (P.W.2), Sunil Kumar (P.W.3), Manohar Ojha (P.W.4) have specifically stated that the applicant was trying to overtake one tractor and trolley which was loaded with wheat husk and at that time, both the motor cycles collided with each other causing injuries to the deceased Amit Jain, Rakesh Jain (P.W.1) and Sunil Jain (P.W.3).
(11) Dr. Jitendra Raghuvanshi had found following injuries on the body of Rakesh Jain (P.W.1):-
''Tenderness + in right leg, Swelling + in right leg, A lacerated wound of size about 3 x 1 cm multiple abrasion + over scalp. Abrasion held on right eye.'' The M.L.C. Report of Rakesh Jain (P.W.1) is Ex.P.3. Dr. Jitendra Raghuvanshi (P.W.5) found the following injuries on the body of Sunil Jain (P.W.3):-
"Multiple abrasion + over forehead, A 2 x 1 cm wound + over right forehead, A 3 x 2 cm wound lacerated wound + over right foot.
A 4 x 1 cm lacerated wound + over right elbow"
The M.L.C. Report of Sunil Jain (P.W.3) is Ex. P.4. Dr. P.K.Sharma (P.W.6) had conducted postmortem of dead body of Amit Jain and had found following injuries:-
"(1) Bleeding from right ear.
(2) Contusion scalp above right ear 3 x 3 cm. (3) Contusion in front of right ear size 3 x 3 cm. (4) lacerated wound right front below 2nd phalanx 0.5x 2 cm x bone deep (4) CRR 1016/2016 (5)Abrasion 2 x 4 cm Ant abdominal wall let gerisanfossil.
(6) Contusion- left thigh anterior side upper 1/3rd 0.24 x 2 cm. Discharge from nose and mouth.'' The Postmortem report is Ex. P.2. (12) Thus, it is clear that Rakesh Jain (P.W.1) and Sunil Jain (P.W.3) had sustained injuries whereas Amit Jain died in the accident.
(13) It is the case of the applicant that in fact Sunil Jain (P.W.3) was driving the motor cycle and not the deceased Amit Jain.
The applicant had also sustained injuries. A F.I.R. Ex. D.3 was registered against Sunil Jain. The applicant was sent for medical examination and his M.L.C. Report is Ex. D.1. Similarly other riders of the motor cycle were also sent for medical examination by requisition Ex.D.2. Although the applicant has examined himself as defence witness along with Dr. V.K. Sharma (D.W.2), Sewadar Ram Bhagat (D.W.3) and Roopvati (D.W.4), but except the M.L.C. Report of applicant himself, no other document was filed to show that any other person riding on the motor cycle along with the applicant had also sustained any injury. (14) Thus, considering the evidence led by the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that on 31-5-2007 at about 3- 3:30 P.M., the applicant was driving a motor cycle bearing registration No. MP 08 M.A.8262 in rash and negligent manner and while overtaking a tractor and trolley which was loaded with wheat husk, dashed against the motor cycle bearing registration No. MP 08 MA 1951 causing injuries to Sunil Jain (PW3), Rakesh Jain (PW1) and causing death of Amit Jain. Thus the applicant is held guilty of committing offence under Section 337 (on two counts) and 304A of I.P.C.
(15) Accordingly, the judgment and conviction dated 7-11-2015 under Section 337 (on two counts) and 304-A of I.P.C. passed by the Trial Court and judgment dated 19-10-2016 passed by the Appellate Court are hereby affirmed.
(16) So far as the question of sentence is concerned, it is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant, that the applicant himself had also sustained injuries. The applicant has remained (5) CRR 1016/2016 in jail from 19-10-2016 till 16-11-2016 and thus, it is clear that the applicant has remained in jail for a period of 27 days. The incident is alleged to have taken place in the year 2007 and counter case was also registered against Sunil. Further, by referring to the evidence of Manoj Ojha (P.W.4) it is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant, that even from the prosecution case, it would be clear that the applicant had also tried to slow down his motor cycle and tried to avoid the accident. Manoj Ojha (P.W.4) is an independent witness. In examination in chief, he has stated as under :-
"j/kqohj LihM ls vk jgs Fks fQj xkMh Lyks gks xbZ Fkh eq>s ;kn ugh gS fd fdruh LihM es Fkh A"
(17) If the evidence of Manoj Ojha (P.W.4) who is an independent witness is considered, then it can be inferred that the applicant had also slowed down his motor cycle. (18) Although long pendency of Trial and mental agony of the accused cannot be a ground to impose lesser sentence, however, in the present case, a counter criminal case was also registered by the police against Sunil Jain (P.W.3). The applicant had also suffered injuries in the accident. In this case, it is alleged by the prosecution that Sunil Jain (P.W.3) was standing by the side of the place of accident and he suffered injuries as he was hit by the motor cycle after the accident, whereas in the M.L.C. Report of Sunil Jain (P.W.3) which is Ex. P.4, the History mentioned by the Doctor is Vehicular Accident at around 2 P.M. on 31-5-2007 with history of unconsciousness for few minutes. In M.L.C. Ex.P.4. Multiple injuries were found on the body of Sunil Jain (P.W.3). The record shows that Sunil Jain (P.W.3) had also suffered fracture of 2nd metatarsal bone, however, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the same was not proved. In the F.I.R. of Cross case which Ex. D.3, it was alleged that it was Sunil Jain (P.W.3) who was driving the motor cycle. Thus, it is possible that 3 persons might be riding on one motor cycle including the deceased, therefore, a new story might have been developed by saying that Sunil Jain (P.W.3) was standing at the place of incident. Similarly, as per the requisition sent by the Doctor to the police which is Ex. D.2, it was mentioned that 4 persons, namely, Roopvati, Bablu, Badri and Raghuvir Singh (6) CRR 1016/2016 were brought to the hospital in an injured condition who had suffered injuries in a road accident. Roopvati (D.W.4) has been examined. It appears that four persons were riding on the motor cycle of the applicant. Thus, it is clear that both the parties have tried to suppress the very genesis of the accident. Further, Manoj Ojha (P.W.4) has also stated that the applicant had slowed down his motor cycle, these are certain aspects which requires consideration while considering the question of sentence. It appears from the evidence that the applicant was trying to overtake a tractor and trolley which was loaded with wheat husk and at that time, he collided with the oncoming motor cycle and before that he tried to slow down his motor cycle also.
(19) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as considering the sentencing policy, this Court is of the view that the jail sentence already undergone by the applicant would serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the applicant is sentenced for the jail sentence, which has already been undergone by him. The fine amount is enhanced to Rs. 5000/- each for offence under Section 337 of I.P.C. (on two counts). Similarly, the fine amount of Rs.1000/- awarded for offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. is enhanced to Rs. 25,000/-. The enhanced fine amount to be deposited within 2 months from today. In case of failure to deposit the enhanced fine amount, the applicant shall undergo the original jail sentence awarded by the Trial Court.
(20) With aforesaid modification, the Criminal Revision is finally disposed of.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge 29/08/2017 *MKB*