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. ... Applicant versus 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. Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR ALLENA Date: 2025.07.24 17:38:34 +0530 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