1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 59 of 2010 Mohan @ Mahendra Singh, S/o Bajar Singh, aged about 20 years, R/o Village & Police Station – Mainpur, District – Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through the District Magistrate, District – Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sachidanand Yadav, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 11/11/2025 1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 22.01.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, District Raipur, (C.G.) (now Gariyaband) in Criminal Appeal No.81/2009 whereby the learned Appellate Court has affirmed the order of conviction and sentence dated 28.10.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gariyaband, in Criminal Case No.182/2009, convicting the applicant under Section 337 of IPC (three counts) and directed to pay fine of Rs.200/- (three counts), in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for ten days; under Section 338 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one month and fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 15 days; and further convicting under Section 304-A of IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one year and fine amount of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for one month. All PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.11.12 14:14:49 +0530 2 the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on the date of incident i.e. on 29.10.2007 at about 08:30 AM, Deepak @ Daddu (deceased), Suresh, Jageshwar, Manjeet and Dhaniram were returning from Kalhadi Ghat to Mainpur on a Jeep bearing registration number CG-05-ZA-2060. It is alleged that when they reached near village Vadhar, the driver/applicant was driving the jeep in a rash and negligent manner due to which the vehicle got turtle as a result of which, Deepak @ Daddu died and other persons sustained injury. Thereafter, the accident was reported to the Police Station Mainpur, and FIR was registered against the applicant/driver. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of JMFC, Gariyaband, against the applicant, who abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned Court of JMFC, 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 22.01.2010 dismissed the same. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicant but is challenging the sentence part, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that the original record of the criminal case has been destroyed in the year 2015 and till date the same has not been reconstructed. He further submits that the copy of deposition sheets of the prosecution 3 witnesses and exhibited documents are not available with him. He further submits that the applicant has remained in jail for 11 days i.e. from 28.10.2009 to 30.10.2009 and from 22.01.2010 to 29.01.2010, he is facing the lis since October, 2007 i.e. for more than 18 years, he has no criminal antecedents, and the fine amount has already been deposited, further, at the time of alleged incident, the applicant was a young boy aged about 20 years. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgments passed by the learned JMFC and Appellate Court. He further submits that though the original record of the case has been destroyed on 26.03.2015 as per report dated 30.03.2022 received from the District and Sessions Judge Raipur, but at this stage, the conviction of the applicant is not challenged by counsel for the applicant. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 8. In the present case, at this stage, the conviction of the applicant has not been challenged by the learned counsel for the applicant but challenged the quantum of sentence awarded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court. Since the conviction of the applicant is not challenged, therefore, this Court is inclined to deal with the sentence part. 9. As regards the sentence part of the applicant, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the facts that the original record of the case has been destroyed in the year 2015 and till date the same has not been reconstructed, further, the applicant has remained in jail for 11 days, he is facing the lis since October, 2007 i.e. for 4 more than 18 years, he has no criminal antecedents, and the fine amount has already been deposited, further, at the time of alleged incident, the applicant was a young boy aged about 20 years, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served to send the applicant back to jail again, and ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon applicant, the jail sentence awarded to him under Section 338 of IPC is reduced to 5 days and the jail sentence awarded to him under Section 304-A of the IPC is also reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 11 days. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. However, the fine sentences under the aforementioned Sections are hereby affirmed. 10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of applicant under the aforementioned Sections are affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentences are 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 the provision contained under Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Prakash