1 2026:CGHC:19487 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 868 of 2016 Sadaram Yadav S/o Nanuha Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Sarda, Police Station Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Tandan, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on board 27/04/2026 1. This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC has been filed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.09.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara (CG) in Criminal Appeal No.33/2015 upholding the judgment dated 03.08.2015 passed by the JMFC, Bemetara, BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.04.28 17:11:19 +0530 2 District Bemetara (CG) in Criminal Case No.69/2014, whereby the applicant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 279, 337, 304-A of IPC S.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional S.I. for 30 days, u/s 304-A of IPC. 2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 06.02.2010, the complainant Ramkumar Sahu, along with approximately 29 passengers, was traveling to Raipur in R.B.S. bus bearing registration No. CG-04-ZA-0766. At around 7:45 AM, while en route from Taralim to Berla, the bus overturned near village Berla, due to rash and negligent driving by driver, Sadaram (applicant). As a result, the passengers sustained various injuries and one passenger, Latabai, died on the spot due to head injuries. After the incident, the driver i.e. applicant fled leaving the bus. On the report of complainant Ramkumar Sahu, FIR was registered at Police Station Berla for offences under Sections 279, 337, 304A IPC. The complainant and injured persons were medically examined at Government Hospital Berla and postmortem of the deceased was conducted. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, the charge 3 sheet was filed against the applicant for the said offence. 3. So as to hold the accused/applicant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 28 documents. The statement of the accused/applicant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties, the trial Court i.e. JMFC, Bemetara vide judgment dated 03.08.2015 convicted the applicant under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A of IPC, however, keeping in view the provisions of Section 71 of IPC, sentenced him only under the gravest charge under section 304A of IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment fine, additional simple imprisonment for 30 days. The applicant challenged this conviction before the Sessions Judge, Bemetara. The appellate Court, vide impugned judgment dated 02.09.2016, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial Court’s judgment, leading to the filing of this criminal revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is not pressing the revision so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident took place in the year 2010 and thereby more than 16 years 4 have rolled by since then. Out of one year jail sentence, the applicant has already remained in custody for about 18 days calculated from the date of the impugned judgment until his release following the suspension of sentence granted by this Court. The applicant is a driver by profession. At the time of incident, he was about 35 years of age and he is now about 51 years old having significant family responsibilities. The applicant has no criminal antecedent. He submits that considering all these facts, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State/Respondent opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant and supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Having gone through the material on record and the evidence of the complainant Ramkumar Sahu (PW-8), injured witnesses Lilaram Sahu (PW-1), Suniti (PW-2), Bisawan (PW-3), Urmila Bai (PW-4), Ghanaram (PW-5), Sunita Bai (PW-6), Kela Bai (PW-10), Manju Sharma (PW- 13), Manoj Kumar (PW-14) and Dr. J. K. Kunjam (PW-7), the involvement of the applicant in the crime in question is 5 clearly established. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by both the Courts regarding conviction of applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A of IPC. 9. As regards sentence, in the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1977) 3 SCC 287, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that if you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries and held in para-9 as follows: “9. Western jurisprudence and 'sociologists, from their own angle have struck a like note. Sir Samual Romilly, critical of the brutal penalties in the then Britain, said in 1817 : “The laws of England are written in blood". Alfieri has suggested : 'society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it’. George Nicodotis, Director of Criminological Research Centre, Athens, Greece, maintains that 'Crime is the result of the lack of the right kind of education.' It is thus plain that crime is a pathological aberration, that the criminal can ordinarily be redeemed, that the State has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub-culture that leads to anti-social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by re- culturisation. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology is the individual, and goal is salvaging him for society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today views sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of social defense. We, therefore consider 6 a therapeutic, rather than an in 'terrorem' outlook, should prevail in our criminal courts, since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. In the words of George Bernard Shaw : 'If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries'. We may permit ourselves the liberty to quote from Judge Sir Jeoffrey Streatfield : “If you are going to have anything to do with the criminal Courts, you should see for yourself the conditions under which prisoners serve their sentences.” 10. In the instant case, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2010, and thereby more than 16 years have passed since then. At the time of incident, the applicant was 35 years old and now he is approximately 51 years having family responsibilities. As per the arrest memo, the applicant is a driver by profession and he has no previous criminal record. The applicant has already served the jail sentence of 18 days and he is currently on bail. 11. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and also considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be appropriate to send back the applicant to jail and the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 12. Accordingly, the conviction of the applicant is maintained, but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already 7 undergone by him i.e. 18 days instead of S.I. for one year. However, the fine amount and its default stipulation imposed by the appellate/trial Court shall remain intact. 13. Consequently, the criminal revision is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 14. The applicant is on bail. He need not to surrender in this case. However, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437A of the CrPC. 15. Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai