1 2025:CGHC:25031 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 306 of 2016 • Ashutosh Mantri S/o Vimal Kumar Mantri, Caste – Maheshwari, aged about 24 years, R/o Gandhi Chowk, Dondi, Police Station Dondi, District Durg, now Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police of Police Station Rajhara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vidya Bhusan Soni, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, Order on Board 17/06/2025 1. This revision has been preferred by the applicant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.03.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balod, District Balod (C.G.), in Criminal Appeal No.260/2013, affirming the judgment dated 26.10.2010 passed in Criminal Case No.44/2009 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajhara, District Durg (now Balod) Chhattisgarh, whereby the applicant was convicted and sentenced as under: PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.06.20 14:33:47 +0530 2 Conviction : Sentence Under Section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘the IPC’) (3 counts) : R.I. for 6 months (3 counts) and fine amount of Rs.500/-(3 counts) and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for 1 month (3 counts) U/s 338 of the IPC (11 counts) : R.I. for 2 months (11 counts) and fine amount of Rs.200/- (11 counts) and in default of payment of fine, R.I. for 1 month (11 counts) U/s 337 of the IPC (35 counts) : R.I. for one month (35 counts) and fine amount of Rs.100/- (35 counts) and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for 1 month (35 counts) U/s 66/192(A) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 : Fine amount of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, R.I. for one month (fine amount has already been deposited) All the sentences are directed to run concurrently 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26.04.2006 the applicant was driving one vehicle Metador Mazda bearing registration No.CG-04- G-6803 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’), in which 58 persons (baratees) were sitting and were going to attend marriage procession. Allegation against the present applicant is that when they were returning, the applicant was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently due to which, at one turning point, the vehicle turned turtle near village Shikaritola, as a result of which three persons died on the spot and other persons received simple and grievous injuries. Injured persons were taken to the hospital for medical treatment and dead bodies were sent for postmortem. It is alleged that the applicant 3 was driving the offending vehicle without valid permit. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the Police Station Rajhara, Durg, pursuant to which FIR (Ex.P-1) was registered against the applicant. Postmortem of the dead body of deceased persons namely, Ramnarayan, Niranjan @ Parau and Raj Kumar was conducted by Dr. R. Ramteke (PW-22), who gave reports vide Ex.P-25, Ex.P-27 and Ex.P-28 respectively. During investigation, spot map (Ex.P-29) was prepared and offending vehicle and its documents were seized from the spot and from the applicant vide seizure memo Ex.P-30 and Ex.P-31 and, thereafter, accused/applicant was arrested. 3. After recording statements of the witnesses, charge sheet was filed against the applicant under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304-A of IPC and Section 66/192 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The trial Court framed the charges against the applicant which was denied by him and he prayed for trial. 4. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 31 witnesses and exhibited 55 documents. Statement of the accused/applicant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In his defence, he has examined none. 5. Learned Court of JMFC after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in the paragraph No. 1 of this judgment. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 26.03.2016, dismissed the appeal while upholding the judgment of the Court of JMFC. Hence, this revision. 4 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and has also failed to prove that the applicant was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently. This apart, the applicant was driving the vehicle slowly and the accident took place at a turning point at about 07:00 PM. He further submits that the incident is of year 2006, applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is facing the lis since 2006, i.e. for more than 19 years. Moreover, the applicant has remained in jail for about 11 days and the fine amount has already been deposited. Looking to the above, it is prayed that lenient approach may be taken against the applicant or the jail sentence awarded to him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment learned counsel for the State submits that conviction and sentence of the accused/applicant are strictly in accordance with law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same warranting interference by this Court. She further submits that the learned Trial Court as well the Appellate Court has already taken lenient approach and only sentenced the applicant for rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The case of the prosecution is that on the date of accident i.e. 26.04.2006 at about 07:00 PM, the applicant was driving the offending vehicle in which about 58 persons were sitting and near village Shikaritola, the vehicle turned turtle and caused accident as a result of which 3 persons died on the spot and other persons received simple 5 and grievous injuries on their bodies. During the trial, the statements of the injured witnesses were recorded. Durga Bai (PW-18) has stated in her Court statement that she had seen the applicant driving the offending vehicle rashly and in drunken state, due to which the accident occurred and she also suffered injuries on her left shoulder. In her cross-examination, she further admitted that the offending vehicle was driven by the applicant-Ashutosh Mantri. In the same manner, Manthir Ram (PW-24) has also stated that the applicant/Ashutosh was driving the offending vehicle and near Shikaritola, the offending vehicle got turtle due to over-speeding, as a result of which he sustained injuries on his eyes and other persons also received injuries. In his cross- examination, this witness has specifically stated that before the accident, the applicant was driving the offending vehicle. 10.To support the evidence of above witness, another injured person, namely, Anushuiya Bai (PW-19) in her Court statement has stated that on the date of accident, she was also sitting in the offending vehicle which was rashly driven by the applicant Ashutosh and near village Shikaritola they met with an accident, due to which she sustained injuries on her waist. Indra Kumar (PW-13) has also deposed that on the date of accident, he was there in the offending vehicle which was rashly driven by the applicant Ashutosh due to which the accident occurred and he suffered injuries on his head and hand. In his cross- examination, this witness denied that driver Ashutosh was driving the vehicle in a moderate speed but on the contrary, stated that it was being driven by him in a speed manner i.e. at more than 100 km/h speed. He further admitted that he was sitting in the back side of the offending vehicle and he had told the driver to drive the vehicle slowly 6 but the driver did not do so. This apart, another injured person, namely, Banshilal (PW-11) has also stated that near Shikaritola turning, the driver Ashutosh was driving the offending vehicle in a speed manner due to which the accident occurred, and he suffered injuries on his neck, face and shoulder. In the same manner, Metram (PW-06) another injured person, also stated that the offending vehicle was being driven in a speed manner and at the turning point, the vehicle turned turtle as a result of which he sustained injuries on his leg. 11.Moreover, Yogesh Soni (PW-01), another injured person who was also present in the offending vehicle and was returning after attending the marriage, met with an accident near Shikaritola due to which he received injuries on his back. He further stated that about 60 persons were sitting in the offending vehicle and due to occurrence of accident, four persons died and several persons were injured. This apart, the motor mechanic, namely, Krishna (PW-23) who has examined the offending vehicle after the alleged accident and presented his report vide Ex.P-27, has deposed that there were no faults on the steering and breaks of the offending vehicle, meaning thereby that the applicant could have controlled the offending vehicle while driving and could have avoided the said accident. 12.Dr. S. Jana (PW-16), Medical Officer at Shahid Hospital, Dalirajhara examined the injured persons, namely, Ganesh, Purosottam, Hemlal, Mahendra, Malti, Dhaniya Ram, Bhisma, Anusuiya, Dev Lal, Puluram, Amrika, Basanti, Durga, Johluram, Pakira Ram, Netram, Narendra, Swarup, Bhuneshwari, Suruchi and submitted the MLC reports vide Ex.P-03 to Ex.P-23. Further, Dr. R. Ramteke (PW-22) is the Medical 7 Officer who conducted the postmortem of the deceased persons who died during the accident, namely, Ramnarayan, Niranjan @ Parau and Rajkumar and gave the postmortem reports vide Ex.P-25, Ex.P-27 and Ex.P-28 respectively. 13. Thus, from the evidence of above mentioned witnesses as well as the evidence of medical reports of the injured persons, postmortem reports and statements of other witnesses, who have duly supported the case of the prosecution, it stands proved that it was the accused/applicant, who on the date of incident was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and near turning point at Shikaritola it turned turtle, resulting into the death of three persons on the spot and one person during course of treatment, further 11 persons were grievously injured and 35 persons received simple injuries on their body. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that the offending vehicle is a goods carrying vehicle and in the present case, the applicant was carrying about 58 persons in the said vehicle, which clearly shows the violation of Motor Vehicles Act by the applicant. In these circumstances, both the Courts below have concurrently held that the prosecution has successfully proved its case under the aforementioned Sections against the applicant. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Courts have already taken lenient view in sentencing the applicant, thus, the finding recorded by both the Trial Courts is the finding of fact based on evidence led by the prosecution which is not perverse and thus needs no interference by this Court. 14. Now considering the submission of the counsel for the applicant to reduce the sentence awarded by the Trial Courts for the period already 8 undergone by the applicant, 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 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 9 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” 15. Further, in the matter of State of Arunachal Pradesh vs Ramchandra Rabidas Alias Ratan Rabidas and another1, 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.” 16. 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 3 innocent persons have lost their life due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver/applicant, also 11 persons have grievously injured and 35 persons have received simple injuries, it would not be appropriate to reduce the sentence as lenient view has already been taken by the Trial Court. Thus, the argument advanced by counsel for the applicant is hereby rejected. 17. In the result, the criminal revision being without any substance is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, it is directed that the applicant shall surrender before the Trial Court concerned and on surrender, he shall be taken into custody and sent to the jail concerned to incarcerate the remaining jail 1 (2019) 10 SCC 75 10 sentence. 18. Records of the Trial Courts be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Prakash