AMBARAM AND DINESH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard finally, on consent of both the parties.

(2.) This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code') has been preferred against the judgment dated 19.7.2017, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar in Criminal Appeal No.198/2016 wherein the learned Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners and maintained the conviction and sentence passed by the JMFC, Dhar in Criminal Case No.2565/2011 on 29.7.2016, wherein the learned Judge found that the petitioners guilty under Sections 304-A of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo 1-1 years of R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/- Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, 3-3 months of S.I. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 1.8.2013 at around 11.00 p.m. on hearing alarm of deceased Kalusingh, his father Kailash (complainant) ran out of his room and he saw his son lying down on the road due to shock sustained by a wire, which was illegally going from the house of Ambaram to his son-in-law's house. The said wire got detached and fell on the road by co-accused Jagdish, who was driving a mini truck. The matter was reported at police station-Tirla. Upon completion of the investigation, the applicants were chargesheeted. Upon trial, trial court and in appeal appellate court found the petitioners guilty as mentioned above.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently stressed the fact that it was a case of false implication. He has urged that the conviction is contrary to the principles of law. The Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence and there are material omissions and contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and hence, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside in the revision petition. He further submitted that, he does not want to press the revision on merits. His only contention is that, the sentence of petitioners be reduced to the period already undergone. It is further submitted that the petitioners have already undergone twenty nine days, out of the sentence awarded to them, therefore, their jail sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.