1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 977 of 2016 Ganesh Ram Alias Pukram Sahu S/o Late Lakhan Lal Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Pondishankar, Police Station- Bamhanideeh, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh, ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Jaijepur District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 04/11/2025 1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 04.10.2016 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.25/2015 whereby the learned Appellate Court has affirmed the order of conviction and sentence dated 05.01.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaijaipur, District – Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.374/2013, convicting the applicant under Sections 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.11.04 16:58:25 +0530 2 of fine, additional R.I. for 1 month. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 19.05.2013 in the morning in between 10:30 to 10:50 AM near village Aamgaon, the applicant – Ganesh Ram @ Pukram Sahu was driving a vehicle Tata Magic bearing registration No.CG-11-D-7093 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) in which about 12-13 passengers were sitting. It is alleged that the driver/applicant was driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the vehicle turned turtle and one Manoj Kumar (deceased) suffered injuries and later on died. Thereafter, the accident was reported to the Police Station Jaijaipur, and FIR was registered against the applicant/driver. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of JMFC, Jaijaipur, against the applicant, who abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. 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 04.10.2016 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 there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 304-A of the IPC. Furthermore, the applicant has remained in jail for 18 3 days i.e. from 04.10.2016 to 21.10.2016, he is facing the lis since May, 2013 i.e. for more than 12 years, he has no criminal antecedent, and the fine amount has already been deposited before the concerned trial Court. He further submits that at the time of alleged accident, the deceased himself was partly negligent as there were no sitting space available on the vehicle and despite that the deceased himself on his own will boarded on the vehicle, this apart, the driver/applicant was driving the vehicle in a moderate speed. 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 judgment passed by the learned JMFC and Appellate Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 8. Perused the statements of the prosecution witnesses, namely, Hemlal (PW-02) who has stated that on the date of the accident, near village Aamgaon, the offending vehicle moved from an unpaved road onto a paved road, and while doing so, the applicant/driver lost control over the vehicle, causing it to overturn, as a result of which the deceased – Manoj Kumar succumbed to his injuries. He further admitted that the deceased was standing near the gate by hanging the upper portion of the vehicle, this apart, the vehicle was fully loaded and the deceased was forbidden to board the vehicle. Another eye-witness Trilochan (PW-03) has deposed that upon reaching Aamgaon, when the offending vehicle moved from unpaved road to the paved road, the 4 wheels on the side where the deceased Manoj was sitting got lifted, due to which the vehicle overturned and deceased was crushed under it. He further admitted that there was no seating space available in the vehicle and that he and other passengers had advised the deceased not to stand near the window; despite this, the deceased boarded the vehicle. The statements of other eye-witnesses to the incident, namely, Chandrakumar (PW-04) and Bhawani (PW-06) have been duly corroborated with the statements of the above witnesses. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, further considering the statements of the above eye-witnesses, 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, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the facts that applicant has remained in jail for about 18 days, he is facing the lis since 2013 i.e. for more than 12 years, he has no criminal antecedent and further, the fine amount has already been deposited, furthermore, despite the applicant and other passengers warned the deceased not to board the already full vehicle, the deceased chose to board in the vehicle of his own will, as a result of which the accident occurred, 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 is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 5 18 days. 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 the provision contained under Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Prakash