1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 794 of 2016 Nakul Ram Sahu, S/o Ramsharan Sahu, Aged About 24 Years, R/o - Village - Charra, Post Office and Police Station - Kurud, District – Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, along with Ms. Pooja Yadav, Advocates, For Respondent/State : Mr. Sachidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 09/07/2025 1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 02.08.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari, (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.51/2016 whereby the judgment dated 28.04.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurud, District – Dhamtari (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.613/2012 convicting the applicant under Section 304-A IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for 20 days, has been affirmed. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on the date of incident i.e. on 30.03.2008 at about 12:30 PM, Janki Bai (deceased), who is the sister of the complainant Johat Ram Nishad, along with other persons was PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.07.09 18:01:50 +0530 2 sitting in the varandah situated in the back side of the house at village Charra, Kurud, District Dhamtari. At that time, the applicant who was driving a tractor bearing registration No.CG/05/B/3746 and Trolley No.CG/05/B/3747 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the wall of the house of the complainant, due to which the wall fall over the deceased Janki Bai, who was sitting behind the wall, as such, she received grievous injuries and succumbed to death. Thereafter, an FIR (Ex.P-1) was lodged to the concerned Police Station by the complainant Johat Ram Nishad (PW-01). Based on the report, Crime No.130/08 was registered against the applicant. During investigation, Crime Detail Form was prepared vide Ex.P-5 and subsequently, statement of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the applicant, who abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 3. Learned Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in Criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 02.08.2016, dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment of the learned JMFC. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicant but is challenging the finding of sentence part, which, according to him, is on higher side. Referring to the statement of Kheman Lal Sahu (PW-02), he further submits that in order to save the motorcyclist which was coming from 3 the front side, the applicant who was driving the offending vehicle, took a slight turn and drove the said vehicle into the door of the complainant, as a result of which, the deceased who was standing near the door, sustained injuries and died. The alleged accident took place while trying to save the person riding motorcycle which was coming from the opposite side. He further submits that the applicant has remained in jail for 38 days i.e. from 02.08.2016 to 08.09.2016. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, he is facing the lis since 2008, i.e. for more than 17 years. He further submits that fine amount has already been deposited before the concerned Court. 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. Reliance has been placed on the judgments passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Amarlal Yadav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh passed in CRR No.38/2010. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the accused/applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 7. Complainant Johat Nishad (PW-01), who is the brother of the deceased has stated in his Court statement that on the date of alleged incident, her sister (deceased) was sitting near the door of his house, and at that time the applicant, who was driving the tractor in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the wall and his sister due to which she suffered injuries and died. However, Kheman Lal Sahu (PW-02), who was also 4 present at the place on incident, has deposed that on the said date of accident, the deceased was standing near the door of the house of the complainant, at that time, one motorcycle being driven by some person was coming, at the same time, the Tractor was being driven by the accused/applicant and the applicant in order to save the motorcyclist, took a slight turn and drove the said vehicle into the door of the complainant, as a result of which, the deceased who was standing near the door, sustained injuries and died. Though the applicant in order to save the motorcyclist, took a slight turn and dashed the door of the house of the complainant, resulting into the death of the deceased, but it was expected from him that he should have driven the offending vehicle in a moderate speed so that accident could be avoided. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, statements of complainant Johat Nishad (PW-01), Kheman Lal Sahu (PW-02) supported with the other evidence available 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. Thus, I hereby affirm the conviction of the applicant. 9. As regards the sentence part of the applicant, looking to the peculiar facts of the present case and also considering the facts that applicant has remained in jail for a period of 38 days, he has no criminal antecedents, he is facing the lis since 2008, i.e. for more than 17 years, and that the fine amount has already been deposited, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served to send the applicant back to jail again, therefore, ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the 5 conviction imposed upon 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 applicant under the aforementioned Section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is hereby affirmed. 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. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Prakash