1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 586 of 2012 Dharam Manjhi S/o Bunchhuram Manjhi Aged About 34 Years R/o Nayapara Mahasamund , Tahsil And Distt. Mahasamund C.G. ... Applicant/Petitioner versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Atanu Ghosh, Deputy Government Advocate. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 02/02/2026 Heard. 1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.09.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.96/2010 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund (C.G.) whereby the appeal is dismissed affirming the judgment dated 29.08.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pithora, Dist. Mahasamund in Criminal Case No.182/2009 convicting and sentencing the applicant as under : CONVICTION SENTENCE Under Section 279 IPC To pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default to pay fine, to undergo further SI for 15 days. Under Section 337 IPC (24 counts) To pay fine of Rs.100/- on each count (total Rs.2,400/-) and in default thereof, to undergo further SI for 7 – 7 days. Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.02.03 17:35:12 +0530 2 Under Section 304-A of IPC (4 counts) To undergo RI for one and half years on each count. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.04.2006 at about 14.00 hours, the applicant/driver was driving the Swaraj Mazda vehicle bearing registration No. C.G-04-G-0479 (for short, the offending vehicle) in a rash and negligent manner and at village Dhak near Bhola Dhabha situate on N.H.6 caused the accident making the offending vehicle to overturn, owing to which, 24 persons were injured whereas 4 persons, namely, Thanuram, Bhagirathi, Bhojram and Panchuram have died. On a report being lodged to the above extent by Forest Guard Jagturam Thakur (P.W.2), Dehati Nalishi was lodged vide Ex.P.1, on which basis, F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant under Crime No.90/2006 vide Ex.P.11. Offending vehicle of the applicant/accused and its relevant documents were seized vide Ex.P.3 & P.4 and the applicant was arrested vide Ex.P.5. Injured persons were sent to the C.H.C. Pithora for their medical examination. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A of IPC was filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate Mahasamund. The applicant/accused abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence while claiming trial. 4. Learned trial Court and that of appellate Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant/accused as mentioned in opening paragraph. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant/accused submits that the finding of both the learned Courts convicting and sentencing the applicant, without proper appreciation of evidence, is erroneous. She further submits that the accused/applicant was not driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident and as per the statements of P.W.3 Somnath, P.W.4 Satyanarayan Sahu, owner of the offending vehicle, P.W.6 Ku. Khemin Bai, P.W.8 Bhagwantin Bai, P.W.9 Binda Bai, P.W.11 Dayalu Ram and P.W.12 Ashok, it 3 is clear that the applicant was not driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, both the learned trial Court and appellate Court have erred in convicting the applicant which is not sustainable. On these premises, she urged that the revision petition may be allowed and the applicant be set at liberty. 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposes the revision and submits that as per evidence of injured eye witnesses, namely, P.W.18 Chander Singh, P.W.19 Setram, P.W.22 Dhanmoni, P.W.23 Sawan Bai and P.W.24, owing to rash and negligent driving of the applicant/accused, P.W.3 Somnath, P.W.6 Ku. Khemin Bai, P.W.8 Bhagwantin Bai, P.W.9 Binda Bai, P.W.11 Dayalu Ram and P.W.12 Ashok and many more were injured and 4 persons have died, therefore, the trial Court and appellate Court were justified in convicting the applicant and sentencing him which is just and proper and does not call for interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely. 8. In order to prove the guilt of the applicant, the prosecution examined as many as 29 witnesses. P.W.1 Baleshwar Sahu, Head Constable has stated that on 19.04.2006 he received telephonic information about the accident, which took place at village Dhak near Bhola Dhaba and he reached to the spot and as per the complainant/Jagtu Ram Thakur (P.W.2), he recorded the Dehati Nalishi vide Ex.P..1, according to which, the accident occurred on 19.04.2006 at 13:00 hours and the report was lodged on the same date at 14:30 hours against the driver – Dharam Manjhi of the offending vehicle Mazda alleging him to cause the accident. It also appears from the report that 4 persons, namely, Thanuram, Bhagirathi, Bhojram and Panchuram have died and other persons, who were travelling in the same vehicle were injured. As per the statement of Dr. Tara Agrawal (P.W.26), she examined the injured persons, namely, Chander Singh, Jagdish, Thanuram, Mukesh, Suresh, Madhu Bai, 4 Amit, Bhanmati, Lalita, Uderam, Sunita, Sawan Bai, Setram and Uttam and submitted M.L.C. report vide Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.25. Statement of Dr. M. Agrawal (P.W.27) shows that he examined the injured persons, namely, Binda Bai, Khemin Bai, Kumari, Rupsingh, Jagatram, Kripal, Shankar, Bhagwantin Bai, Milap, Hetobai and Kumari Janki and submitted their M.L.C. reports vide Ex.P.26 to Ex.P.36 and according to Dr. J.N.Shrivastava (P.W.28), he conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased persons, namely, Bhagirathi and found injury on his head and his death was accidental in nature vide report Ex.38. P.W.29 Dr. S.N.Manjhi conducted the post-mortem examination on the deceased Bhojram and opined that his death was accidental in nature and he died of head injury sustained by him due to road accident and his Post-mortem reports is exhibited as Ex.39. Moreover, Dr. Ulhas Gonnade, who conducted the Post-Mortem examination on the dead body of Panchuram vide Ex.P.40, has opined the death of Panchram to be accidental in nature and cause of death of Panchuram to be head injury. The statements of Dr. Tara Agrawal (P.W.26), Dr. M. Agrawal (P.W.27), Dr. J.N.Shrivastava and that of Dr. Ulhas Gonnade, have not been rebutted in their cross-examination, and therefore, it can safely be held that on account of rash and negligent driving of the applicant/driver, the offending vehicle overturned and 4 persons have died and many other persons travelling in the same vehicle got injured due to such accident. 9. Now, the question that arises for consideration is whether the applicant/accused was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident? P.W.2 Jagturam Thakur, Forest Guard has stated that accident took place at 12:00 noon and in order to get the bonus of Tendupatta, all of them including injured persons and deceased persons were sitting in the Matador 407 and ahead of village Jhalap, the applicant – Dharam Manjhi, who was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, caused the accident, due to which, the persons sitting in the vehicle got injured and Bhagirathi, Panchu 5 and Bhojram have died. Injured eye witness P.W.18 Chander Singh, who was also travelling in the said vehicle, has specifically stated that at the time of accident, the accused/applicant was driving the vehicle in a rash and engligent manner, therefore, the vehicle turned turtle and he was injured. In his cross-examination, he specifically stated about the applicant/accused, who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Another inured witnesses P.W.19 Setram, P.W.22 Dhanmoni, P.W.23 Sawan Bai and P.W.24 Heto Bai have clearly stated that at the time of accident, the applicant/accused himself was driving the offending vehicle. As per the statement P.W.6 Khemin Bai, at the time of accident, 40 - 50 persons were travelling in the said vehicle. Although P.W.3 Somnath, P.W.6 Khemin Bai, P.W.8 Bhagwanti Bai, P.W.9 Binda, P.W.12 Ashok, P.W.14 Kaliram and P.W.15 Jamuna Bai were unaware of the name of the driver, but these witnesses were sitting in the said vehicle and were able to state about the rash and negligent driving of the driver which led to accident. Moreover, P.W.18 Chander Singh, P.W.19 Setram, P.W.22 Dhanmoni and P.W.23 Sawan Bai as well as P.W.2 Jagturam Thakur have also stated about vehicle being driven by the applicant in a rash and negligent manner. 10. From the above evidence, it is clear that the offending vehicle was being driven by the applicant/accused and while driving the same in a rash and negligent manner, caused accident claiming the lives of 4 innocent persons and causing injuries to many persons. There is no major contradictions and omissions in the statements of above witnesses with respect to accident. The evidence of injured eye witnesses was also found corroboration from the promptly lodged F.I.R. (Ex.P.11) against the applicant/driver. In addition to above, it is also pertinent to mention here that the offending vehicle was meant for carrying goods and not meant for carrying passengers. 11. 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 6 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 in 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” 12. Further, in the matter of State of Arunachal Pradesh vs Ramchandra Rabidas Alias Ratan Rabidas and another, (2019) 10 SCC 75, 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.” 13. Although from the evidence of above prosecution witnesses, it is already held that the offending vehicle was being driven by the applicant in a rash and 7 negligent manner, but he was also held liable for cause of accident claiming the lives of four innocent persons and causing injuries to many more persons travelling in the said vehicle. 14. 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 4 innocent persons have lost their lives and many more persons were injured due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver/applicant/accused, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that both the trial Court and appellate Court were fully justified in convicting the applicant as such and I do not find any infirmity in the same. However, fine amount and the default sentence as awarded by the trial Court shall remain in tact. 15. Consequently, the revision is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. The applicant is reported to be on bail and he shall surrender before the concerned trial Court for serving remaining jail sentence. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani