1 2025:CGHC:47347 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 529 of 2012 Kamlesh Sumer Kshatri S/o Ram Prasad Aged About 29 Years R/o Lalkhadan , P.S. Torva Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur C.G. ... Revisioner/Appellant/Accused versus State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Through - District Magistrate Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondent/Prosecution For Revisioner : Ms. Deepti Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 15/09/2025 1. This criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.08.2012 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.93/2012 whereby the appellate Court partly allowed the appeal while affirming the conviction of the applicant under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of IPC., reduced the sentence to 3 months S.I. from 6 months S.I. under Section 338 IPC and similarly reduced the sentence to S.I. for 6 months in place of S.I. for two years and also reduced the fine amount to Rs.1,000/- from Rs.2,000/- under Section 304-A of IPC while keeping in tact the sentence of till rising of the court with fine of Rs.1,000/- awarded under Section 279 IPC and fine sentence of Rs.1,000/- imposed under Section 338 IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.01.2011 when P.W.1 Sajan Bai along with companions Bharti and Meena went to Devkinandan Chowk for Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2025.09.16 17:42:24 +0530 2 decoration of light and when they were passing through the said Chowk, they were dashed by the offending vehicle Swaraz Mazda bearing registration No.C.G.10-A/8295, which was being driven by the applicant/driver in a rash and negligent manner. On account of such dash, Meena suffered injures on her knee, P.W.1 Sajan Bai also got injuries over her body whereas, Bharti Suryawanshi has died. The injured persons were admitted in CIMS Hospital, thereafter a report was lodged by one Bharat Lal Rathore P.W.4 at Police Station against the applicant. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of C.J.M.Bilaspur. The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, vide its judgment dated 03.03.2012 passed in Criminal Case No.373/2011, convicted the applicant under Section 279, 338 and 304-A of IPC and sentenced the applicant til rising of the Court with fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 279 IPC, to S.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 338 IPC and to S.I. for two years with fine of Rs.2,000/- along with usual default sentence with a direction to run the sentences concurrently. The appellate Court, vide its judgment dated 09.08.2012 upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence, as mentioned in para 1 of this order. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that she does not want to challenge the conviction part of the applicant and confines her argument to the sentence part only, which according to her is on higher side. She further argues that the accident took place when the deceased and her other companions including P.W.1 Sajan Bai were holding the decoration lights and were moving on road. She further submits that the applicant remained in jail for 2 months 2 days, i.e., from 09.08.2012 to 11.10.2012 and he has no criminal antecedents and is facing lis since 2011, i.e., more than 13 years. She further submits that fine amount has already been deposited. Therefore, it is prayed by counsel for the applicant that the jail sentence awarded to applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by 3 him. 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel 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 evidence led by the prosecution on record connecting the applicant in crime in question and other evidence and material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the Court of JMFC Court as well as by the Appellate Court, being based on the evidence available on record, is a correct finding. Therefore, I hereby affirm the said finding of conviction of applicant. 9. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the overall evidence on record, the fact that the applicant remained in jail for a period of 2 months 2 days, he has no criminal antecedents and is facing the lis from 2011 i.e. more than 13 years, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon applicant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine amount with default sentence imposed by the Court of JMFC as well as Appellate Court for the aforesaid offence shall remain intact. The direction to run the sentences concurrently shall also remain intact. 10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of applicant under the aforementioned Sections is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 11. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Samhita, 2023. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani