1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 599 of 2016 - Meghnath S/o Shyam Lal Vastrakar Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Kaudiya, Police Station Sipat, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Shri Abhipreet Bajpai, Advocate on behalf of Shri Dharmesh Srivastava, Advocate For State/Respondent : Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan and Shri Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyers Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 17/09/2025 1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 25.6.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) in Criminal Appeal No.188 of 2015, whereby the appeal filed by the Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.09.18 16:32:36 +0530 2 applicant/accused was dismissed while affirming the judgment dated 26.11.2015 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No.5273 of 2015, wherein the applicant/accused is convicted under Section 337 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 months and pay fine of Rs.500 in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 15 days and he is also convicted under Section 338 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and pay fine of Rs.1,000 in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 1 month. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 11.6.2006 at about 3:00 a.m. Fuldas and his wife Malabai were going to Village Mohtara by a bullock-cart. When they reached near Police Station Masturi, the applicant/accused by driving Hyva Truck bearing registration No.CG 10 C 0279 rashly and negligently dashed the bullock-cart and thereby caused grievous injuries to Fuldas and simple injuries to Malabai. The matter was reported in Police Station Masturi. The injured were medically examined by Dr. Suman Arya (PW5) and Dr. R. Jeetpure (PW8). Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 3. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet for the offence punishable under the aforesaid sections was filed before the concerned Judicial Magistrate. The 3 applicant/accused abjured the charges and pleaded innocence. 4. Learned Trial Court, after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the applicant/accused. However, the appeal filed by the applicant/accused against the judgment passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence was affirmed as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. Hence, this revision by the applicant/accused. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction part of the applicant/accused and confines his argument to the sentence partly only, which is on higher side. He further submits that the applicant has remained in jail for 8 days, i.e., from 25.6.2016 to 2.7.2016. Fine amount has already been deposited by him. He further submits that the applicant is now aged about 60 years. He has no criminal antecedent and is facing the lis since June, 2006, i.e., for more than 19 years. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgment. 4 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with due care. 8. Considering the statements of Fuldas (PW1) and Malabai (PW2), the injured witnesses coupled with the medical evidence of Dr. Suman Arya (PW5) and Dr. R. Jeetpure (PW8), a Radiologist in the form of MLC Reports (Ex.P4, P5 and P11) and the other evidence on record, this Court finds that the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is correct finding. 9. As regards the sentence part of the applicant, considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering that the applicant has remained in jail for 8 days, he is presently aged about 60 years and is facing the lis since June, 2006, i.e., for more than 19 years and there is no criminal antecedent against him, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be served if while upholding the conviction imposed upon him, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant under the aforementioned sections is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is also affirmed. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 5 11. The applicant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds shall remain in force for a further period of 6 months in view of the provision contained in Section 481 BNSS. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Gopal