Chattisgarh High Court
Ashutosh Mantri vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 June, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:25031
Digitally
NAFR
signed by
PRAKASH
PRAKASH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.06.20
14:33:47
+0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Criminal Revision No. 306 of 2016
• Ashutosh Mantri S/o Vimal Kumar Mantri, Caste - Maheshwari, aged
about 24 years, R/o Gandhi Chowk, Dondi, Police Station Dondi,
District Durg, now Balod, Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant
versus
• State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police of Police
Station Rajhara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Vidya Bhusan Soni, Advocate on
behalf of Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. G.A.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal,
Order on Board
17/06/2025
1. This revision has been preferred by the applicant being aggrieved by
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.03.2016
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balod, District Balod (C.G.), in
Criminal Appeal No.260/2013, affirming the judgment dated 26.10.2010
passed in Criminal Case No.44/2009 by the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Rajhara, District Durg (now Balod) Chhattisgarh, whereby the
applicant was convicted and sentenced as under:
2
Conviction : Sentence
Under Section 304(A) of : R.I. for 6 months (3 counts) and
Indian Penal Code (in short fine amount of Rs.500/-(3 counts)
‘the IPC‘) (3 counts) and in default of payment of fine,
further R.I. for 1 month (3 counts)
U/s 338 of the IPC (11 : R.I. for 2 months (11 counts) and
counts) fine amount of Rs.200/- (11
counts) and in default of payment
of fine, R.I. for 1 month (11
counts)
U/s 337 of the IPC (35 : R.I. for one month (35 counts) and
counts) fine amount of Rs.100/- (35
counts) and in default of payment
of fine, further R.I. for 1 month (35
counts)
U/s 66/192(A) of Motor : Fine amount of Rs.2,000/- and in
Vehicles Act, 1988 default of payment of fine, R.I. for
one month (fine amount has
already been deposited)
All the sentences are directed to run concurrently
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26.04.2006 the applicant
was driving one vehicle Metador Mazda bearing registration No.CG-04-
G-6803 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’), in which 58
persons (baratees) were sitting and were going to attend marriage
procession. Allegation against the present applicant is that when they
were returning, the applicant was driving the offending vehicle rashly
and negligently due to which, at one turning point, the vehicle turned
turtle near village Shikaritola, as a result of which three persons died
on the spot and other persons received simple and grievous injuries.
Injured persons were taken to the hospital for medical treatment and
dead bodies were sent for postmortem. It is alleged that the applicant
3
was driving the offending vehicle without valid permit. Thereafter, the
matter was reported to the Police Station Rajhara, Durg, pursuant to
which FIR (Ex.P-1) was registered against the applicant. Postmortem
of the dead body of deceased persons namely, Ramnarayan, Niranjan
@ Parau and Raj Kumar was conducted by Dr. R. Ramteke (PW-22),
who gave reports vide Ex.P-25, Ex.P-27 and Ex.P-28 respectively.
During investigation, spot map (Ex.P-29) was prepared and offending
vehicle and its documents were seized from the spot and from the
applicant vide seizure memo Ex.P-30 and Ex.P-31 and, thereafter,
accused/applicant was arrested.
3. After recording statements of the witnesses, charge sheet was filed
against the applicant under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304-A of IPC and
Section 66/192 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The trial Court framed the
charges against the applicant which was denied by him and he prayed
for trial.
4. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined
as many as 31 witnesses and exhibited 55 documents. Statement of
the accused/applicant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the
prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In his
defence, he has examined none.
5. Learned Court of JMFC after appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in the
paragraph No. 1 of this judgment. The said judgment was challenged
by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide
judgment dated 26.03.2016, dismissed the appeal while upholding the
judgment of the Court of JMFC. Hence, this revision.
4
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution has
utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and has also
failed to prove that the applicant was driving the offending vehicle
rashly and negligently. This apart, the applicant was driving the vehicle
slowly and the accident took place at a turning point at about 07:00
PM. He further submits that the incident is of year 2006, applicant has
no criminal antecedents and he is facing the lis since 2006, i.e. for
more than 19 years. Moreover, the applicant has remained in jail for
about 11 days and the fine amount has already been deposited.
Looking to the above, it is prayed that lenient approach may be taken
against the applicant or the jail sentence awarded to him may be
reduced to the period already undergone by him.
7. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment learned counsel
for the State submits that conviction and sentence of the
accused/applicant are strictly in accordance with law and there is no
illegality or infirmity in the same warranting interference by this Court.
She further submits that the learned Trial Court as well the Appellate
Court has already taken lenient approach and only sentenced the
applicant for rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
9. The case of the prosecution is that on the date of accident i.e.
26.04.2006 at about 07:00 PM, the applicant was driving the offending
vehicle in which about 58 persons were sitting and near village
Shikaritola, the vehicle turned turtle and caused accident as a result of
which 3 persons died on the spot and other persons received simple
5
and grievous injuries on their bodies. During the trial, the statements of
the injured witnesses were recorded. Durga Bai (PW-18) has stated in
her Court statement that she had seen the applicant driving the
offending vehicle rashly and in drunken state, due to which the accident
occurred and she also suffered injuries on her left shoulder. In her
cross-examination, she further admitted that the offending vehicle was
driven by the applicant-Ashutosh Mantri. In the same manner, Manthir
Ram (PW-24) has also stated that the applicant/Ashutosh was driving
the offending vehicle and near Shikaritola, the offending vehicle got
turtle due to over-speeding, as a result of which he sustained injuries
on his eyes and other persons also received injuries. In his cross-
examination, this witness has specifically stated that before the
accident, the applicant was driving the offending vehicle.
10.To support the evidence of above witness, another injured person,
namely, Anushuiya Bai (PW-19) in her Court statement has stated that
on the date of accident, she was also sitting in the offending vehicle
which was rashly driven by the applicant Ashutosh and near village
Shikaritola they met with an accident, due to which she sustained
injuries on her waist. Indra Kumar (PW-13) has also deposed that on
the date of accident, he was there in the offending vehicle which was
rashly driven by the applicant Ashutosh due to which the accident
occurred and he suffered injuries on his head and hand. In his cross-
examination, this witness denied that driver Ashutosh was driving the
vehicle in a moderate speed but on the contrary, stated that it was
being driven by him in a speed manner i.e. at more than 100 km/h
speed. He further admitted that he was sitting in the back side of the
offending vehicle and he had told the driver to drive the vehicle slowly
6
but the driver did not do so. This apart, another injured person, namely,
Banshilal (PW-11) has also stated that near Shikaritola turning, the
driver Ashutosh was driving the offending vehicle in a speed manner
due to which the accident occurred, and he suffered injuries on his
neck, face and shoulder. In the same manner, Metram (PW-06) another
injured person, also stated that the offending vehicle was being driven
in a speed manner and at the turning point, the vehicle turned turtle as
a result of which he sustained injuries on his leg.
11.Moreover, Yogesh Soni (PW-01), another injured person who was also
present in the offending vehicle and was returning after attending the
marriage, met with an accident near Shikaritola due to which he
received injuries on his back. He further stated that about 60 persons
were sitting in the offending vehicle and due to occurrence of accident,
four persons died and several persons were injured. This apart, the
motor mechanic, namely, Krishna (PW-23) who has examined the
offending vehicle after the alleged accident and presented his report
vide Ex.P-27, has deposed that there were no faults on the steering
and breaks of the offending vehicle, meaning thereby that the applicant
could have controlled the offending vehicle while driving and could have
avoided the said accident.
12.Dr. S. Jana (PW-16), Medical Officer at Shahid Hospital, Dalirajhara
examined the injured persons, namely, Ganesh, Purosottam, Hemlal,
Mahendra, Malti, Dhaniya Ram, Bhisma, Anusuiya, Dev Lal, Puluram,
Amrika, Basanti, Durga, Johluram, Pakira Ram, Netram, Narendra,
Swarup, Bhuneshwari, Suruchi and submitted the MLC reports vide
Ex.P-03 to Ex.P-23. Further, Dr. R. Ramteke (PW-22) is the Medical
7
Officer who conducted the postmortem of the deceased persons who
died during the accident, namely, Ramnarayan, Niranjan @ Parau and
Rajkumar and gave the postmortem reports vide Ex.P-25, Ex.P-27 and
Ex.P-28 respectively.
13. Thus, from the evidence of above mentioned witnesses as well as the
evidence of medical reports of the injured persons, postmortem reports
and statements of other witnesses, who have duly supported the case
of the prosecution, it stands proved that it was the accused/applicant,
who on the date of incident was driving the offending vehicle in a rash
and negligent manner and near turning point at Shikaritola it turned
turtle, resulting into the death of three persons on the spot and one
person during course of treatment, further 11 persons were grievously
injured and 35 persons received simple injuries on their body. Further,
it is pertinent to mention here that the offending vehicle is a goods
carrying vehicle and in the present case, the applicant was carrying
about 58 persons in the said vehicle, which clearly shows the violation
of Motor Vehicles Act by the applicant. In these circumstances, both
the Courts below have concurrently held that the prosecution has
successfully proved its case under the aforementioned Sections
against the applicant. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the
learned Trial Courts have already taken lenient view in sentencing the
applicant, thus, the finding recorded by both the Trial Courts is the
finding of fact based on evidence led by the prosecution which is not
perverse and thus needs no interference by this Court.
14. Now considering the submission of the counsel for the applicant to
reduce the sentence awarded by the Trial Courts for the period already
8
undergone by the applicant, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 182,
while considering the concept of adequacy of quantum of sentence for
the offence under Section 304-A of IPC has held as under:-
“23. In the instant case, the factum of rash and negligent
driving has been established. This court has been constantly
noticing the increase in number of road accidents and has also
noticed how the vehicle drivers have been totally rash and
negligent. It seems to us driving in a drunken state, in a rash and
negligent manner or driving with youthful adventurous enthusiasm
as if there are no traffic rules or no discipline of law has come to
the centre stage. The protagonists, as we perceive, have lost all
respect for law. A man with the means has, in possibility,
graduated himself to harbor the idea that he can escape from the
substantive sentence by payment of compensation. Neither the
law nor the court that implements the law should ever get
oblivious of the fact that in such accidents precious lives are lost
or the victims who survive are crippled for life which, in a way,
worse than death. Such developing of notions is a dangerous
phenomenon in an orally society. Young age cannot be a plea to
be accepted in all circumstances. Life to the poor or the
impecunious is as worth living for as it is to the rich and the
luxuriously temperamental.
24.Needless to say that the principle of sentencing
recognizes the corrective measures but there are occasions when
the deterrence is an imperative necessity depending upon the
facts of the case. In our opinion, it is a fit case where we are
constrained to say that the High Court has been swayed away by
the passion of mercy in applying the principle that payment of
compensation is a factor for reduction of sentence to 24 days. It is
absolutely in the realm of misplaced sympathy. It is, in a way
mockery of justice. Because justice is ” the crowning glory”, ” the
sovereign mistress” and “queen of virtue” as Cicero had said.
Such a crime blights not only the lives of the victims but of many
others around them. It is ultimately shatters the faith of the public
9in judicial system. In our view, the sentence of one year as
imposed by the trial Magistrate which has been affirmed by the
appellate Court should be reduced to six months”
15. Further, in the matter of State of Arunachal Pradesh vs
Ramchandra Rabidas Alias Ratan Rabidas and another 1, it has been
held by the Supreme Court at paragraph 15 as under:-
“15. This Court has time and again emphasised on the need to
strictly punish offenders responsible for causing motor vehicle
accidents. With rapidly increasing motorisation, India is facing an
increasing burden of road traffic injuries and fatalities. The financial
loss, emotional and social trauma caused to a family on losing a bread
winner, or any other member of the family, or incapacitation of the
victim cannot be quantified.”
16. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and further
considering the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
above referred matters as to sentencing policy and further taking into
consideration that 3 innocent persons have lost their life due to rash and
negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver/applicant, also 11
persons have grievously injured and 35 persons have received simple
injuries, it would not be appropriate to reduce the sentence as lenient
view has already been taken by the Trial Court. Thus, the argument
advanced by counsel for the applicant is hereby rejected.
17. In the result, the criminal revision being without any substance is liable
to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. The appellant is reported
to be on bail, therefore, it is directed that the applicant shall surrender
before the Trial Court concerned and on surrender, he shall be taken into
custody and sent to the jail concerned to incarcerate the remaining jail
1 (2019) 10 SCC 75
10
sentence.
18. Records of the Trial Courts be sent back along with a copy of this order
forthwith for information and necessary compliance.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal)
Judge
Prakash