2025:CGHC:7606 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 348 of 2016 Dharam @ Dharam Singh Yadav S/o Puran Yadav, aged about 32 years R/o Village: Farsiyan, Post Office and Police Station: Nagri, District : Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Dhamtari, District: Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. R.N. Pusty, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 12.02.2025 1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 12.04.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, District: Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh in SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.02.13 14:35:00 +0530 Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 2015 whereby, the appeal filed by the applicant was partly allowed while confirming the conviction of the applicant under Sections 279, 337 (four times) and 338 of IPC and while reducing the sentence to RI for 3 months (for Section 338 of IPC) with fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.11.2014, when the complainant namely Dujram Mandavi along with his wife and other relatives were going from Village: Chanagaon to Dhamtari and when they reached near Village: Kukrail, the present applicant who was coming from backside while driving his vehicle Bus bearing registration No. CG04-E-2479, rashly and negligently, dashed the vehicle of the complainant, as a result of which, the complainant and other persons received multiple injuries over their body. On report being lodged to the above effect, the offence under the aforesaid sections were registered against the applicant. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under the aforesaid sections were filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari, District: Dhamtari (C.G.). The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non- guilty. 4. Learned Trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted the applicant under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of IPC and sentenced him to RI for 3 months, RI for 3 months with a fine of Rs. 500 (four times), in default SI for 15 days and RI for 3 months with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default SI for 1 month. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide order dated 12.04.2016 partly allowed the appeal while upholding the conviction and altered the sentence part as mentioned in Para 1. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction part of the applicant and confines his argument to the sentence part only, which is on higher side. He further submits that the applicant has remained in jail for 10 days i.e. from 12.04.2016 to 21.04.2016, he has no criminal antecedent and he is facing the lis since 2014, i.e. for more than 10 years and the fine amount has already been deposited by him. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgment. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 8. Considering the statements complainant Dujram Mandavi (PW-2), Nirmala Kodopi (PW-3), Kaushilya (PW-4) supported by the statements of eye witness Krishna Kumar (PW-7) coupled with the medical evidence of Dr. Aabha Hirshikar (PW-8) in the form of MLC Report vide Ex.P/7 and other evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court as well as 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 10 days, he is facing the lis since 2014 and there is no criminal antecedent against him, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicant, 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 affirmed. However, all the sentences shall run concurrently. 11. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. 12. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Saurabh