1 2025:CGHC:28109 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 57 of 2007 1 - Deonath Gond, aged 23 years, S/o Fagawaram Gond, R/o Village Bisahutola, PS Chichola, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through PS Chhawni, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Pandey, GA Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 26/06/2025 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.01.2007 passed by the learned 8th Additional Session Judge (FTC), Durg (C.G.) in Session Trial No.121/2005, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years with default stipulations. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 24.2.2005, at about Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA 2 10.00 AM, the traffic police Ramkumar Sahu was on duty at Dabrapara crossroads, at that time the truck bearing No.CG4ZC5035 was being driven by the appellant/accused rashly and negligently, upon which the appellant tried to stop the truck by raising his hands but the accused/appellant did not stop the truck and crushed him the deceased and the deceased died on the spot. Thereafter a case was registered against the accused and he was arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the appellant before the Magistrate concerned. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. The learned Trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly and did not consider omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The learned Trial Court has also wrongly appreciated the statements of PW-5 Santosh Kumar and PW-6 Harakh Ram, despite that the learned Trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant, hence prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, He submits that the incident took place in the year 2005, this appeal is pending since 2007, the appellant remained in jail for about 7 months and has never misused the liberty granted by this 3 Court and presently he is aged about 41 years of age, therefore, the appellant may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant, as such no interference is called for. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 304 Part-I of IPC against the appellant. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 7. PW-1 Constable Parshuram stated that on the date of incident on 24.02.2005, the deceased Ramkumar was on traffic duty at crossroad Dabrapara and during his duty, he gave signal of stopping the truck coming from front, but the truck driver did not stop the truck and loaded the truck over Ramkumar. He admitted his signature on notice (Ex-P/1) and inquest memo (Ex-P/2). PW- 2 Radheshyam Kosre and PW-4 Ashwani Kumar Sahu also admitted their signatures on Ex-P/1 & Ex-P/2. Constable PW-3 4 Pritam Gandharv stated that he received information that Ramkumar has an accident at Dabrapara, thereafter he went to the place of occurrence where he saw that Ramkumar had already died. 8. PW-5 Santosh Kumar stated that on the date of incident, he was with constable Harakh and when they reached Dabrapara crossroads, where Ramkumar was on his traffic duty. When he gave signal of stopping the truck coming from front, but the truck driver did not stop the truck and loaded the truck over Ramkumar and tried to run away, then they chased him and caught the truck driver. In the cross-examination, he admitted suggestion of defence that for controlling vehicle, the platform has been built at crossroads for standing constable, but the deceased was standing beneath platform. PW-6 Constable Harakh Singh stated that on the date of incident, Ramkumar standing with him in patrolling car and while seeing the truck from front side, he told that he is coming after giving pass to the coming truck and when he was going towards platform, but at that time the truck driving crushed him and running away towards Transport Nagar, thereafter they chased truck and caught the truck driver. 9. Section 304 of IPC provides as under:- “304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing 5 death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.” 10. Section 304-A provides as under:- “304A. Causing death by negligence.— Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” 11. It is clear from the statement of the eye witnesses that on the date of incident, the deceased on his traffic duty and he was not standing on platform built for the purpose of controlling traffic instead he was standing on road. It is also clear from the statement of PW-6 Harakh that the deceased was going towards platform for stopping the truck, at that time the truck driver hit/loaded truck over him. Thus, it is not clear from the statements of all the witnesses that the truck driver had any intention or knowledge to kill deceased Ramkumar by his act, but it is also clear that the truck was being driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the accident occurred and Ramkumar died, but the learned Trial Court did not appreciate all these facts and convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part-II of IPC, instead he should have convicted under Section 304 Part- I of IPC. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant is altered from 6 Section 304 Part-II of IPC into Section 304 Part-I of IPC. 12. As regards sentence, it is clear that the incident took place in the year 2005, this appeal is pending since 2007, the appellant remained in jail for about 7 months and has never misused the liberty granted by this Court and presently he is aged about 41 years of age, therefore, ends of justice would be served if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. Accordingly, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 13. The appeal is partly allowed. 14. The appellant is reported to be on bail. 15. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- before the Court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 16. The Trial Court’s record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala