In criminal cases where a long period has elapsed since the date of the incident and the accused has already undergone a portion of the sentence, the court may reduce the sentence to the period already undergone in the interest of justice.

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 by the petitioner assailing the judgment dated 29.08.2012 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhind (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.136/2012, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was partly allowed by setting aside his conviction 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/- 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 vehicle bearing registration No.MP-30/T-0126 had occurred, as a result of which the complainant sustained injuries. On the basis of aforesaid, an FIR bearing Crime No.425/2009 was registered at police station Dehat, District – Bhind (M.P.) for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Officer, Village Court, Janpad – Bhind (M.P.). The Village Court after conclusion of trial, vide judgment dated 02.04.2012, convicted the accused/petitioner under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo three months’ rigorous imprisonment for each offence 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. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 29.08.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.136/2012, the accused/petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the accused/petitioner argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and that the Courts below have failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record. He further argues that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses no independent witness has supported the prosecution case. It is further argued that the accused/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 to 06.09.2012 out of total awarded jail sentence of three months by the Sessions 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, in the case of Banti Kumar v. State of MP &ors. delivered by the Co-ordinate 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. 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 judg