1 2026:CGHC:4987 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 279 of 2012 Rajendra Singh S/o Ganpat Ram, 35 years, R/o Hikmipara, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar, C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Distt. Magistrate, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar C.G., ...State/ Respondent. For Applicant : Shri Keshav Dewangan, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Shri Ram Narayan Sahu, Deputy GA. Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 29/01/2026 1. This revision under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.03.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bastar, place Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.19/2010, arising out of judgment dated 28.06.2010 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bastar, place Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.427/2009, whereby the applicant has been convicted under Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for six months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.01.30 15:10:41 +0530 2 amount, additional S.I. for 2 months. However, the Appellate Court while passing the impugned judgment, affirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.01.2006, complainant-Hitesh along with his friend, namely Haribandhu was returning from Raipur in two different motorcycles. When they reached near Pharsaguda, a car bearing Registration No.CG-18-C-0511, dashed the motorcycle of Haribandhu, due to which, Haribandhu fell down from motorcycle and sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. The matter was reported to the concerned Police Station. On the basis of the above facts, offence was registered against the applicant and thereafter, statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet under the aforesaid Section was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagdalpur against the applicant, who abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. Learned trial Court, 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 31.03.2012 dismissed the appeal. 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. It is argued 3 by learned counsel for the applicant that at the time of accident, deceased was riding the motorcycle parallel to the motorcycle driven by Hitesh and the alleged accident occurred while the applicant was overtaking the motorcycle which is also clear from the statement of the Raj Yadav (PW-06). He also submits that the deceased should have also driven the motorcycle in a careful manner. He further submits that the applicant is aged about 55 years and he was in jail from 31.03.2012 to 20.04.2012, total 21 days and he is facing the lis since January, 2006 i.e. for 20 years. Furthermore, the applicant has no criminal antecedent. This apart, the fine amount has already been deposited before the concerned trial Court. 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 trial Court and Appellate Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as per the statement of Hitesh Sahu (PW-01) and other witnesses, it appears that the accused driver was riding the offending vehicle and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, as such, the deceased suffered severe injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, 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. 4 9. As regards the sentence part of the applicant, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the manner the incident took place and further considering the facts that applicant has remained in jail for 21 days, he is facing the lis since 2006 i.e. for 20 years and at present, applicant is 55 years old, he has no criminal antecedent, 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. 21 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 provision contained under Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Avinash