1 2026:CGHC:21174 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 790 of 2016 Ramesh Kumar Sahu S/o Maniram Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village-Raikona, Police Station - Sarsiwa, Civil And Revenue District - Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Alok Nigam, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Narayan Prasad, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board 06/05/2026 1. The present criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the impugned Judgment dated 17.08.2016 passed by learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda-Bazar (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 44/2016 upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.05.2016 passed by the JMFC, Bhatgaon, District - Baloda-Bazar (C.G.), in BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.05.08 11:28:52 +0530 2 Criminal Case No. 30/2011, whereby, the applicant has been convicted and sentenced as under :- Conviction Sentence U/s 304-A of IPC R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional S.I. for 1 month. U/s 279 of IPC Fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 1 month. U/s 338 (once) of IPC Fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 1 month. U/s 337 (thrice) of IPC Fine of Rs. 500/-(thrice), in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 1 month (thrice). 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 04.02.2008, at about 3:30 p.m., applicant Ramesh Sahu, was driving an unregistered taxi in a rash and negligent manner. Near village Dhobanidih, the applicant lost control of the vehicle, causing it to overturn on the left side of the road. Consequently, the complainant, Hetram Karsh, along with other passengers, sustained grievous injuries, while another passenger, Joshi Bathman, succumbed to his injuries during treatment. At the time of the incident, five persons were seated in the taxi, all of whom witnessed the incident. Upon a report being lodged regarding the incident, the police registered Crime No. 48/2008 against the 3 applicant and after due investigation, charge sheet was filed before the concerned Court for trial. 3. So as to hold the accused/applicant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 12 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, vide judgment dated 06.05.2016, the trial Court i.e. JMFC, Bhatgaon has convicted and sentenced the accused/applicant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. The applicant challenged this conviction before the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar. The appellate Court, vide impugned judgment dated 17.08.2016, 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 is said to have taken place in the year 2008, and thereby more than 18 years have rolled by since then. Out of six months jail sentence, the applicant has already remained 4 in custody for about 15 days. At the time of incident, the applicant was about 28 years old and now he is 46 years having family responsibility. 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. Having gone through the material on record and the evidence of the witnesses Hetram (PW-1), Smt. Triveni (PW- 2) Deshan Dahariya (PW-3), Sakun Mallewar (PW-8), Dr. Ullas Gonnade (PW-9), Dr. Suresh Kumar Khunte (PW-10), Dr. Rohit Dubey (PW-12) and the report given by them, the involvement of the applicant in the crime in question is clearly established. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by both the Courts regarding conviction of the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A, 279, 338 and 337(thrice) of IPC. 8. 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 5 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 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.” 9. In the instant case, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2008, and thereby more than 18 years have 6 passed since then. At the time of incident, the applicant was 28 years old and now he is approximately 46 years having family responsibility. As per the arrest memo, the applicant has studied upto 9th class and has no previous criminal record. The applicant has already served the jail sentence of 15 days and he is currently on bail. 10. 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. 11. Accordingly, the conviction of the applicant for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC is maintained but his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 15 days instead of R.I. for 6 months. However, the fine of Rs. 1000/- imposed upon the applicant u/s 304-A of IPC is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount imposed/enhanced by this Court today, the applicant shall be liable to undergo R.I. for 3 months. Fine amount, if any, already deposited by the applicant, shall be adjusted. Since the applicant has been sentenced only to fine for the offence under Sections 279, 338 and 337(thrice) of IPC, his conviction, the respective sentence of fine and 7 the default stipulations under these specific sections are also maintained. 12. Consequently, the criminal revision is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 13. 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. 14. Let a certified copy of this order along with original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai