1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 650 of 2016 Order Reserved on 30.10.2025 Order Pronounced on 20.11.2025 Ghanshyam Kumar Hichame S/o Bhaavsingh Hichame Aged About 25 Years R/o Raadwahi, Police Station Korar, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station, Bhanupratappur, District Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Shri Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Sachidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) C.A.V. Order Heard. 1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.06.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.07/2015 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanupratappur, Dist. North Bastar Kanker whereby judgment dated 14.05.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhanupratappur in Criminal Case No. 615/2013 convicting the applicant under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC and sentencing him to undergo SI for six months-six months with fine of Rs.1,000/- & Rs.500/-, in default to pay fine, to undergo further SI for 15 days and 10 days under Sections 279 & 337 IPC and further, to undergo SI for two years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default thereof, additional SI for 30 days under Section 304-A IPC, has been confirmed by the learned appellate Court. Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2025.11.20 15:53:47 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 01.05.2013 at 8:30 pm, the applicant/driver was driving the Marshall Jeep bearing registration No. C.G- 04-B-2757 (for short, the offending vehicle) in a rash and negligent manner and while taking a sharp cut to overcome Mazda vehicle near village Tekadhodha, caused the offending vehicle to overturn, owing to which, Devendra Kumar Bhuarya, Tamsingh Bhuarya and Lakhan Kosma, sitting therein, received injuries, out of whom, Lakhan Kosma and Devendra Kumar have died during treatment. On a report being lodged to the above extent, F.I.R. under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A of IPC was lodged against the applicant under Crime No.65/2013 vide Ex.P.2. Offending vehicle of the applicant/accused and its relevant documents were seized vide Ex.P.3 and the applicant was arrested on 11.05.2013. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A of IPC was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhanupratappur. The applicant/accused abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence while claiming trial. 4. Learned trial Court and that of appellate Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant/accused as mentioned in opening paragraph. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant/accused submits that the finding of both the learned Courts convicting and sentencing the applicant, without proper appreciation of evidence, is erroneous. He further submits that there was no cogent and clinching evidence to prove that the applicant was perpetrator of the crime in question while taking a sharp cut to overcome the Mazda vehicle and that, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In alternative, he submits that the quantum of punishment imposed upon the applicant is on higher side and that too, harsh. He further submits that the incident is of 2013, he has no criminal antecedents and he is facing the lis since 2013. The applicant/accused was 3 in jail since 29.06.2016 to 15.07.2016, i.e., for a period of 17 days and he may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. He further contends that the fine amount has been deposited. On these premises, he urged that the revision petition may be allowed and the applicant be set at liberty. 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposes the revision and submits that owing to rashness and reckless driving of the applicant/accused, two persons, who were sitting in the Jeep, have lost their lives and one person was injured, therefore, the trial Court and appellate Court were justified in convicting the applicant and sentencing him which is just and proper and cannot be reduced to the period already undergone by the applicant. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely. 8. In order to prove the guilt of the applicant, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. P.W.1 Tam Singh is an injured witness, who has stated that on the date of accident, he was sitting in the offending vehicle and was going to Dondi to Korar, the Jeep, which was being driven by the applicant at a high speed, got accident at village Kachche as he was talking on his mobile phone in his hand while driving the Jeep in a rash and negligent manner, it was night at the time of accident and in fact, the applicant/accused was not a jeep driver but a tractor driver. The accident occurred due to the accused’s fault. P.W.3 Narendra Komra has stated that on the date of accident he was travelling in the Marshall jeep along with deceased persons and was coming from village Dondi, the applicant, on one hand, was talking on his mobile phone and on the other hand, held the steering and there was a turn of the road and while taking the offending vehicle towards that turn he could not control the vehicle, resulting in, accident occurred. He has further stated that at the time of incident, the offending vehicle was being driven by the accused speedily and this witness along with the persons sitting therein forbidden him 4 twice from talking on mobile while driving, but did not listen. P.W.4 Akram Kuraisi, owner of the offending vehicle, has stated that at the time of incident, the applicant was driving the offending vehicle. 9. From the above evidence, it is clear that the offending vehicle was being driven by the applicant/accused and while driving the same in a rash and negligent manner, caused accident claiming the lives of two innocent persons and causing injuries to one person. There is no major contradictions and omissions in the statements of above witnesses with respect to accident. The evidence of eye witnesses was also found corroboration from the promptly lodged F.I.R. (Ex.P.2). Therefore, I am of the view that both the trial Court and appellate Court were fully justified in convicting the applicant as such and I do not find any infirmity in the same. 10. Now, I shall consider submission of the counsel for the applicant to reduce the sentence awarded by the appellate Court for the period already undergone by the applicant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 182, while considering the concept of adequacy of quantum of sentence for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC has held 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 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. 24.Needless to say that the principle of sentencing recognizes the corrective measures but there are occasions when the deterrence 5 is an imperative necessity depending upon the facts of the case. In our opinion, it is a fit case where we are constrained to say that the High Court has been swayed away by the passion of mercy in applying the principle that payment of compensation is a factor for reduction of sentence to 24 days. It is absolutely in the realm of misplaced sympathy. It is, in a way mockery of justice. Because justice is “ the crowning glory”, “ the sovereign mistress” and “queen of virtue” as Cicero had said. Such a crime blights not only the lives of the victims but of many others around them. It is ultimately shatters the faith of the public in judicial system. In our view, the sentence of one year as imposed by the trial Magistrate which has been affirmed by the appellate Court should be reduced to six months” 11. Further, in the matter of State of Arunachal Pradesh vs Ramchandra Rabidas Alias Ratan Rabidas and another, (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.” 12. Although from the evidence of above prosecution witnesses, it is already held that the offending vehicle was being driven by the applicant in a rash and negligent manner, but he was also held liable for cause of accident claiming the lives of two innocent persons and causing injuries to one person. The learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court have, therefore, rightly convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences. 13. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred matters as to sentencing policy and further taking into consideration that two innocent persons have lost their lives and one person was injured due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver/applicant/accused, it would not be appropriate for this Court to reduce the sentence already undergone by him, however, looking to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant to reduce the sentence period already undergone by him, I am of the considered opinion that the jail 6 sentence cannot be reduced to the period already undergone by him, but, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and that, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is facing lis since May 2013, his jail sentence could be altered. Accordingly, it is ordered that sentence of two years simple imprisonment (SI) under Section 304-A IPC is reduced to six months SI, similarly the sentence of six months SI under Section 279 IPC is reduced to SI for 15 days and likewise, from six months SI under Section 337 IPC is reduced to two months SI. However, fine amount and the default sentence as awarded by the trial Court shall remain in tact. In view of above, the argument advanced by the applicant to the effect that the appellant be sentenced to the period already undergone by him is hereby rejected. All the sentences shall run concurrently. 14. Consequently, the revision is allowed in part. The applicant is reported to be on bail and he shall surrender before the concerned trial Court for serving remaining jail sentence. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani