1 2025:CGHC:759 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 913 of 2014 Devendra Sahu S/o Aaju Ram Sahu Aged About 20 Years Student Of Class M.A. Previous Sanskrit Govt. Du. Shri Vai. P.S. Sanskrit College, Raipur C.G. R/o Village Bhoring, P.S. Tumgaon Distt. Mahasamund C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Through P.S. House Tumgaon, Distt. Mahasamund C.G. ….Non-applicant For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ashok Verma as well as Mr. Gajendra Sahu, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.01.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the judgment and order dated 26.11.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 15/2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC) Mahasamund, District-Mahasamund (C.G.) afÏrming the judgment dated 09.02.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund (C.G.), whereby the learned JMFC has convicted the applicant for offence under Section 304(A) of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 01 year with fine of Rs. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.07 11:54:08 +0530 2 1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 16.07.2011, at about 7.00 P.M. when informant PW/4 Sunil Nehru alongwith PW/3 Sanjay Banjare was going from Tumgaon to Bhoring and reached 3 Km. ahead of Tumgaon turning and reached near Temrin Tree, saw that Ashwani Dhidhi of village Bhoring standing his C.D. Dawn Motor cycle near road urinated, then from the side of Tumgaon, Devendra Sahu of Village Bhoring on his Motor Cycle bearing registration No. CG-06-C-9855 driving in a race and negligently manner and dashed the motor cycle of Ashwani Dhidhi resulting Ashwani Dhidhi fell down and Devendra Sahu/applicant ran away by his Motor cycle. Due to collision, the deceased- Ashwani Dhidhi sustained head injury and the blood came out from the ear. He was taken to District Hospital immediately by eye witness P.W.4 Sunil Nehru where he was declared dead. Thereafter, PW/6 Narendra Dhidhi brother of the deceased, Ashwani Dhidhi was inti-mated the accident by the eye witness PW/4 Sunil Nehru. 3. The inquest was conducted by Police Station Mahasamund, in which the brother of the deceased and Manish Dhidhi were the panchas. F.I.R. was lodged by the eye witness PW/4 Sunil Nehru, on the next day i.e. 17.07.2014. Investigation and collection of evidence done by the police and registered the offence under Section 304 (A) and 279 of IPC and charge-sheet was filed before the learned trial Magistrate. The learned trial Court had mainly 3 relied the evidence of Eye witness PW/ 3 Sanjay Banjare and PW/4 Sunil Nehru. 4. After appreciating the evidence and material available on record , the trial Court convicted the applicant for offence under Section 304 (A) of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court, the applicant was preferred an appeal before the learned appellate Court through an appeal No.15/2012. Vide impugned judgment dated 26.11.2014. learned appellate Court, afÏrmed the judgment of trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this criminal revision. 5. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant does not challenge his conviction, learned counsel only emphasized that the sentence may be modified suitably by enhancing the fine amount as the applicant has already undergone about sixteen days of jail sentence for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by him may be sufÏce to meet the ends of justice by enhancing the fine amount. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaydev Shrichand Danani v. State of Gujarat reported in 1993 Supp (1) SCC 616. 6. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/ State, would strongly support the impugned judgment and submit that there is no need to interfere with the sentence. 4 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments of the trial Court and appellate Court as well as records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 8. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the learned trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted the revisionist as mentioned in the opening paragraph. In appeal preferred by the applicant, the appellate Court has maintained the conviction and sentence of the applicant. Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court have not committed any illegality or infirmity in convicting and sentencing the applicant and affirming the conviction and sentence of the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 304(A) of IPC. 9. Now considering the question of sentence, as the applicant has faced the criminal trial since 2011 and thereafter more than 13 years has elapsed, considering the age of the applicant at present and further considering that the applicant has already undergone about sixteen days of jail sentence, there would be no useful purpose to again send the applicant in jail as he has already suffered agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. So this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the jail sentence from R.I. for 01 year under Section 304-A of the IPC, to the period already undergone by the applicant i.e. sixteen days days of jail sentence, however fine amount is enhanced from Rs. 5 1000/- to Rs. 5000/- (Total fine amount is enhanced Rs. 4000/-) for offence under Section 304(A) of IPC, in addition to the fine amount already awarded by the trial Court. The enhanced fine amount of Rs. 4000/-, shall be deposited by the applicant, within a period of one month from today before the trial Court concerned and the same shall be paid to the Children Observation Home Mahasamund (C.G.), failing which he shall undergo the sentence as has been awarded by the learned trial Court as well as appellate Court. Ordered accordingly. 10. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 11. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal Sd/-