[ad_1]
Chattisgarh High Court
Beeru Nishad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 July, 2025
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 179 of 2016
Beeru Nishad S/o Chunu Nishad Aged About 42 Years Caste Kenwat, R/o
Darrabhatha, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
Digitally
signed by ... Applicant
ANJANI
KUMAR
ALLENA versus
Date:
2025.07.24
17:38:34
+0530
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Saraipali,
District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Shri Swaraj Kanungo, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer.
(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)
Order on Board
23/07/2025
Heard.
1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. arises out of the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.04.2015 passed in
Criminal Appeal No.23/2014 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Saraipali,
Dist. Mahasamund (CG) whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal
while upholding the judgment dated 27.04.2010 passed in Criminal Case
No.77/2009 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saraipali
Dist.Mahasamund (CG) convicting and sentencing the applicant as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 279 IPC SI for one month.
Under Section 337 IPC To pay fine amount of Rs.500/-
and in default to pay fine
amount, additional SI for one
month.
2
Under Section 338 IPC SI for one year with fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default to pay
fine amount, additional SI for 3
months.
Under Section 304-A IPC SI for 2 years with fine of
Rs.5,000/- and in default
thereof, additional SI for 3
months.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.03.2002 at about 10:00 pm
the complainant Shokie Lal was going to village Jhilamila to attend the
marriage function on a Tractor No.M.P. 23-GA-6442 attached with Trolley No.
M.P. 23-GA-6443 (for short, the offending vehicle). Along with him, Shirat,
Sanat, Girdhar, Ratan, Kripasindhu, Hemant, Lalit Kumar, Keertan,
Padmalochan and Keertan Sahu were also travelling in the said offending
vehicle as Baarati. On account of rash and negligent driving by the
applicant/driver, the offending vehicle turned turtle, due to which, the
persons travelled in the trolley received grievous and simple injuries whereas
Keertan Sahu has also received grievous injuries and died during treatment.
The incident was reported by the complainant himself on 22.03.2002 in
Police Station Saraipali and based on report F.I.R. has been registered
against the applicant/driver. All the injured persons were sent for medical
examination. During investigation, statements of witnesses have been
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Saraipali. The applicant abjured his charge and
pleaded non-guilty.
4. Learned Court of J.M.F.C. Saraipali, after appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence, recorded the finding of conviction and sentence as
mentioned in para 1. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in
criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated
22.04.2015 dismissed the appeal of the applicant while upholding conviction
and sentence of the trial Court, as mentioned in opening paragraph. Hence,
3
this revision.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant does not challenge the revision
on conviction of the applicant but is challenging the finding of sentence part,
which, according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that at the time
of incident, applicant was aged about 39 years and now his age is more than
62 years. The applicant has already undergone for 10 months and 3 days,
i.e., from 22.04.2015 to 26.02.2016 and he has no criminal antecedents and
that, he is facing the lis since March, 2002. Therefore, it is prayed by the
learned counsel for the applicant that jail sentence already incarcerated by
him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. He further
submits that the fine amount has already been deposited in the concerned
Court.
6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel formally opposed the revision while
supporting the impugned judgment
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused
the record.
8. Considering the statements of P.W.1 Ratanlal and P.W.2 Shoukie Lal
supported by the medical evidence of P.W.4 Dr. S.K.Sahu, P.W.17 Amrit and
P.W.18 S.D.Baghel, Sub-Inspector and further considering the other
evidence and material documents available on record, I am of the view that
both the Trial Court as well as appellate Court were justified in convicting the
applicant as such.
9. As regards jail sentence of the applicant, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, particularly, considering the fact that the applicant
is now aged about 62 years and that, the applicant remained in jail for a
period of 10 months and 3 days and he is facing the lis since 2002, i.e., for
more than 23 years and there are no criminal antecedents against him, I am
of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if, while
upholding the conviction of the applicant recorded by the trial Court and
4
confirmed by the appellate Court, the jail sentences awarded to him is
reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the jail sentences
undergone by him shall run concurrently. The fine sentence shall remain in
tact.
10. Consequently, the revision is allowed in part. The conviction of the applicant
under the aforesaid sections is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period
already undergone by him. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail,
therefore, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months as
per the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal)
JUDGE
Anjani
[ad_2]
Source link