1 2026:CGHC:21908 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No.369 of 2016 1 - Yugal Kishore, S/o Shukwara Ram Jangade, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village Dhatura, Police Station Kosmanda, District Korba, Chhattisgarh Appellant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Prashant Gupta, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Mr. Amiya Bhushan, PL Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 11.05.2026 1. This revision has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.03.2016 passed by the learned Session Judge, Session Division, Bilaspur (CG) in Criminal Appeal No.153/2015 affirming the judgment dated 31.08.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No.5259/2015, whereby the applicant has been convicted under Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 Sections 304-A, 337 & 337 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, RI for 6 months with fine of Rs.500/- and RI for 6 months with fine of Rs.500/-, respectively, with default stipulations. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 29.12.2009 in the morning, the applicant while driving Hyva Truck bearing Registration No.CG-10-A-9102 rashly and negligently dashed Kishore Yadav, Puroshottam Yadav and Sampatti Bai and again dashed to one Maruti vehicle parked in the same place and thereby caused death of Kishore Yadav and the injured Puroshottam and Sampatti Bai sustained injuries. Thereafter a case was registered against the applicant. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate concerned. The learned Trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record by the judgment dated 31.08.2015 convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Subsequently, by the impugned judgment dated 28.03.2016 the lower appellate Court has affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned judgment is bad in law, perverse and therefore, liable to be set aside. He further submits that both the Courts below have erred in appreciating the evidence of witnesses and material available on record. The applicant was not driving the truck and instead 3 Aurangzeb Ansari was driving the vehicle but he escaped from the place and police wrongly registered the case against the present applicant. PW-11 Devashish Banerjee, owner of the offending vehicle, specifically stated that Aurangzeb was driving the vehicle, but the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court did not consider the above said aspects of the matter and have recorded a wrong finding. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, it is submitted that if the Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the applicant is just and proper, then considering the fact that the the incident took place in the year 2009 and revision is of the year 2016, the age of the applicant at that time was 20 years and applicant has remained in jail for about 1 month and the applicant has never misused the liberty granted by this Court and has already deposited the fine amount imposed by the learned Courts below of Rs.2000/-, therefore, the applicant may kindly be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that after due appreciation of the evidence learned Courts below have found the applicant guilty of the aforesaid offence. It is submitted that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited and no interference is called for in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. 4 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 6. The learned Trial Court considered the evidence of PW-1 Rajbahadur, PW-3 Jitendra Kumar Yadav and PW-6 Santosh Kumar Yadav and recorded a finding that it is the applicant who by driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner dashed Maruti Van of deceased. In the said accident, Kishore Yadav died and Puroshottam and Sampati Bai sustained injuries, which has been proved by the evidence of Dr. Rajesh Kumar (PW-9), Dr. Rahul Bhargav (PW-10) and Dr. Devashish Banerjee, who conducted postmortem of deceased and examined the injured. Thus, considering the overall evidence including oral and medical evidence on record the learned Trial Court rightly held the applicant guilty of the offence under Sections 337, 337 & 304-A of IPC and sentenced him, as mentioned above. In the appeal, the learned Appellate Court also did not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court and accordingly affirmed the judgment of the learned Trial Court. 7. Having gone through the evidence of eye witnesses and the medical evidence, the manner in which the accident occurred, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the applicant for the aforesaid offence and the learned Appellate Court is also justified in maintaining the conviction of the appellant. 5 8. So far as the period of sentence is concerned, considering the fact that the applicant has already remained in jail for about 1 month, the incident took place in the year 2009, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in sending the applicant back to jail at this stage and the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him and directed to pay additional fine amount of Rs.10,000/- for the aforesaid offence, which, in turn, shall be disbursed to the dependents/family members of the deceased. 9. In the result, the revision is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of the applicant under Sections 304A, 337 & 337 of IPC, the jail sentence imposed thereunder is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The applicant has already deposited the entire fine amount of Rs.2000/- with the trial Court. He is directed to pay additional fine of Rs.10,000/-. On deposit of the said fine amount, the same shall be disbursed to the dependents/family members of the deceased by the trial Court after due verification. If the applicant fails to deposit the fine amount, he shall undergo additional RI for 3 months. 10. The applicant is reported to be on bail. 11. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- before the Court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that 6 in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. The Trial Court’s record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala