1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 154 of 2012 Order Reserved on 27.10.2025 Order Delivered on 31.10.2025 • Udaychand Patel, S/o Bhagatram Patel, aged about 32 years, R/o Village Kotrimal, Tahna - Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh C.G. ...Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Lailunga, District Raigarh, C.G. ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Krishna Tandan, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal CAV Order 1. This revision has been preferred by the applicant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.02.2012 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, C.G., in Criminal Appeal No.51/2010, affirming the judgment dated 04.08.2010 passed in Criminal Case No.559/2004 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gharghoda, District Raigarh, C.G., whereby the applicant was convicted and sentenced as follows:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 337 of Indian Penal Code (seven counts) Simple Imprisonment for two months and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional simple AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.10.31 16:27:26 +0530 2 imprisonment for one month on each count Under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (four counts) Simple Imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional simple imprisonment for two months on each count Under Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional simple imprisonment for one month Under Section 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional simple imprisonment for one month (All sentences were directed to run concurrently) 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 11.07.2004, at about 9:00 p.m., the applicant was driving a tractor, without having a valid driving licence and insurance, bearing registration No. MP26-E-5029 attached with a trolley bearing registration No. MP26-E-5030 (hereinafter referred to as the 'offending vehicle'), carrying about 15–20 persons in the trolley. When they reached near Bilai Puliya, at village Laripani, the applicant, while driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, turned it turtle, as a result of which, some of the persons sitting in the said trolley sustained injuries and four persons died. On a report being lodged to the above effect, FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered against the applicant. During investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P- 3, registration certificate of tractor and trolley were seized from the applicant vide Ex.P-1, vide Ex.P-22 tractor and trolley were seized from the spot and accused/applicant was arrested. 3 3. After recording the statements of the witnesses, the charge-sheet was filed against the applicant under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3/181 and 146/196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The trial Court framed the charge against the applicant under Sections 279, 337 (seven times) and 304-A (four times) of the IPC and Sections 3/181 & 146/196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which the applicant denied and prayed for trial. 4. The learned Court of JMFC, as well as the appellate Court, after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in Paragraph No. 1 of this Order. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the Court of JMFC as well Appellate Court have not properly appreciated the overall evidence on record for holding the applicant guilty. He would further submit that the prosecution has failed to prove that the applicant was driving the tractor-trolley in a rash or negligent manner. He would also submit that although the applicant was driving the said vehicle, but there is no reliable evidence on record to establish that the accident occurred due to his rashness or negligence. According to the prosecution witnesses, the trolley attached with the tractor suddenly got detached, causing it to turn turtle. Hence, the accident was the result of mechanical failure and not due to any fault on the part of the applicant. Therefore, it is urged that the applicant deserves to be acquitted of the charges levelled against him. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Satish, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 493, and also upon the 4 order of this Court passed in CRR No. 101/2012 in the matter of Baldau v. State of Chhattisgarh, vide order dated 18.11.2022. 6. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgments, learned counsel for the State would submit that as per the statements of injured witnesses PW-1 Gomti Bai, PW-2 Shanti Bai and PW-4 Tijo Bai along with other evidence on record, it is clearly established that on the date of incident, accused-applicant was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. He would further contend that the driver- applicant was not holding a valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle at the time of incident, which also demonstrates his negligence. The accident resulted in the death of four persons and injuries to seven others and it has come on record that a total number of nineteen persons were travelling in the trolley, which was not for carrying passengers, at the time of the incident. Therefore, both the learned trial Court and the Appellate Court have rightly convicted the applicant and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same warranting interference by this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. PW-1 Gomti Bai, injured eye-witnesses to the incident, has stated that at the time of incident, the offending vehicle was being driven by the applicant and due to his negligence, the offending vehicle turned turtle which led to death of Mangmati, Sundar Bai, Samari Bai and Chandramati. She has further stated that at the time of incident, she was also sitting on the trolley and that the applicant was driving the offending vehicle at a very high speed. In cross-examination, she 5 denied the suggestion that there is a turn at the place where the tractor overturned, but specifically stated that there is a turn just ahead of that spot. She further admitted that a small bridge is situated at a distance of about 15 meters from the place of the incident and that there is a slope above the same. 9. PW-2 Shanti Bai, another injured eye-witness to the incident, has stated that on the date of incident, accused/applicant was driving the offending vehicle and that she along with 19 persons were also sitting in the offending vehicle. She has further stated that initially applicant drove the offending vehicle at a moderate speed, but then suddenly accelerated to a high speed, due to which, the offending vehicle overturned. In cross-examination, she admitted that before the place of occurrence, there were 3-4 turns and further admitted that there was a bridge where the accident took place and just ahead of it there is an upward slope. She also admitted that after taking the turn, the coupling portion connecting the tractor and the trolley suddenly broke, as a result of which, one wheel of the trolley went into a pit and the trolley overturned. 10. PW-4 Tijobai, another injured eye-witness to the accident, has stated that on the date of incident, accused/applicant was driving the offending vehicle and she along with 19 persons were also sitting in the offending vehicle. She has further stated that it was a dark night and the tractor's headlights were not functioning and for that reason, the accident occurred. 11. Thus, from the evidence of injured eye-witnesses i.e. PW-1 Gomti Bai, PW-2 Shanti Bai and PW-4 Tijo Bai, who have duly supported the case 6 of the prosecution, it stands proved that on the date of incident, the applicant was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the death of four individuals and injuries to others. There are no major contradictions or omissions in the statements of the aforesaid witnesses and their evidence also finds corroboration with the contents of FIR (Ex.P-2). Further, from the evidence available on record, it is established that the applicant was driving the offending vehicle without possessing any valid and effective driving licence, which itself demonstrates that he was negligent. It is pertinent to mention here that if a person is capable of driving a vehicle, he must necessarily possess a driving licence. However, in the present case, the applicant was not possessing any valid and effective driving licence which clearly shows that he was not authorized or competent to drive the offending vehicle. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 182 has held in para 23 which reads as under:- “23. In the instant case, the factum of rash and negligent driving has been established. This court has been constantly noticing the increase in number of road accidents and has also noticed how the vehicle drivers have been totally rash and negligent. It seems to us driving in a drunken state, in a rash and negligent manner or driving with youthful adventurous enthusiasm as if there are no traffic rules or no discipline of law has come to the centre stage. The protagonists, as we perceive, have lost all respect for law. A man with the means has, in possibility, graduated himself to harbor the idea that he can escape from the substantive sentence by payment of compensation. Neither the law nor the court that implements the law should ever get 7 oblivious of the fact that in such accidents precious lives are lost or the victims who survive are crippled for life which, in a way, worse than death. Such developing of notions is a dangerous phenomenon in an orally society. Young age cannot be a plea to be accepted in all circumstances. Life to the poor or the impecunious is as worth living for as it is to the rich and the luxuriously temperamental.” 13. Further, in the matter of State of Arunachal Pradesh vs Ramchandra Rabidas Alias Ratan Rabidas and another reported in (2019) 10 SCC 75, it has been held by the Supreme Court at paragraph 15 as under:- “15. This Court has time and again emphasised on the need to strictly punish offenders responsible for causing motor vehicle accidents. With rapidly increasing motorisation, India is facing an increasing burden of road traffic injuries and fatalities. The financial loss, emotional and social trauma caused to a family on losing a bread winner, or any other member of the family, or incapacitation of the victim cannot be quantified.” 14. When the present case is examined in the light of aforesaid decisions of Supreme Court coupled with the evidence available on record, it is quite vivid that four innocent persons have lost her lives and several others sustained injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver/applicant. It is also established that the applicant was driving the offending vehicle at a high speed during the night without switching on the headlights and was carrying 19 persons in the trolley and while taking a turn, he lost control over the vehicle, causing it to overturn, whereas he ought to have been very careful while driving the offending vehicle near the turning. In these circumstances, both the learned Courts have concurrently held that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the applicant. I am of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by 8 both the learned Courts are the findings of fact based on evidence led by the prosecution, which are neither perverse nor contrary to the record and thus needs no interference by this Court. 15. Having gone through the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant and the principles of law laid down therein, in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, the aforesaid judgments, being distinguishable on facts, are of no help to the counsel for the applicant. 16. In the result, the criminal revision, being without any substance is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, it is directed that the applicant shall surrender before the concerned trial Court and on surrender, he shall be taken into custody and send him to jail to incarcerate the remaining jail sentence. 17. Records of the learned Courts be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Saurabh/Akhilesh