1 2026:CGHC:21931 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 6 of 2011 Pawan, S/o Shyamlal, Caste – Sahu, aged about 36 years, R/o Stationpara, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District-Dhamtari (CG) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (CG) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Shubham Tripathi, Advocate on behalf of Mrs. Indira Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J Order on Board 11/05/2026 The matter is listed today for appearance of the accused pursuant to the bailable warrant issued against him vide order dated 30.3.2026. In compliance thereof, the applicant is present before this 2 Court and is duly identified by his counsel. His appearance is taken on record. However, looking to the pendency of this revision since 2011, with the consent of the parties it is heard finally. 02. Challenge in this revision is to the legality and validity of the judgment dated 1.1.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.64/2010 preferred by the applicant against the judgment dated 12.8.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari in Criminal Case No.171/2008 convicting the applicant u/s 279, 338 and 304A (twice) of IPC and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- u/s 279 & 338 of IPC and to undergo RI for 1 year & pay a fine of Rs.1000/- on each count u/s 304A of IPC with default stipulation. 03. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the date of the accident i.e. 10.2.2008 at 6.30 o’clock, a jeep bearing registration No. CG 07 T 0780, coming at high speed from the Dhamtari side, collided head-on with a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 07 K 3907 coming from the opposite direction. As a result, the motorcycle rider, Devnarayan, died and another person riding on the motorcycle sustained injuries. Thereafter, the jeep driver drove the jeep in a zigzag manner and overturned it on the roadside, due to which Ashok Kumar Sahu of village Chhipli, who was travelling in the jeep, died. Information about the incident was given at night by Manharan Sahu to the complainant Hukumlal. Based on this information, the complainant 3 lodged a report at the police station (Ex.P/1). During the investigation, the spot map and inquest reports Ex. P/2 and P/4 were prepared. The X-ray report of injured Suresh is Ex.P/6 and his medical examination report is Ex.P/5. A damage inspection report of the motorcycle was prepared as Ex.P/3. The accused was arrested vide Ex.P/8. The jeep and its documents were seized from accused Pawan vide Ex.P/7. The inspection report of the vehicle was prepared as Ex.P/9. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was prepared and presented before the Court. 04. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 279, 338, 304-A and 304A (twice) of IPC against the accused which were abjured by him and he prayed for trial. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses whereas the accused examined two witnesses in defence. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court by the judgment dated 12.8.2010 in Criminal Case No.171/2008 convicted the applicant u/s 279, 338, 304A, 304A of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 05. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the applicant preferred an appeal (Criminal Appeal No.64/2010) before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari and by the impugned judgment dated 1.1.2011 the learned appellate Court having found no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the trial court dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision. 4 06. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is not pressing this revision on merits, however, he prays for reduction of sentence awarded to the applicant. He submits that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the manner in which the accident occurred way back in the year 2008, the age of the applicant, the fact that he was on bail during trial as well as during pendency of the appeal and the instant revision and did not misuse the liberty, he remained in jail for a period of 45 days and deposited the entire fine amount, his jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. Reliance has been placed on the order dated 5.5.2026 of this Court in CRR No.820/2012 in the matter of Chandraprakash Vs. State of CG. 07. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the contention of the applicant would submit that in view of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Courts below have committed no illegality or irregularity in holding the applicant guilty u/s 279, 338, 304A of IPC on two counts and sentencing him accordingly. Therefore, the present revision being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 08. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 09. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the applicant was charged under Sections 279, 338, 304A of IPC on two counts and 5 after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced him under the aforesaid sections. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge having found no illegality or infirmity in the findings of the trial Court dismissed the appeal. 10. PW-9 BR Kashyap, ASI, states that on information being given by Hukumlal, he registered FIR No.53/2008 (Ex.P/1) and also recorded merg intimation Ex.P/10. He states that he prepared inquest panchanama of the deceased Devnarayan and Ashok Kumar Sahu as Ex.P/2 & P/4. Thereafter, he sent the dead bodies for postmortem vide Ex.P/11 & P/12. As per postmortem reports, the deceased persons died due to shock as a result of internal and external excessive bleeding caused by road side accident. 11. PW-1 Hukumlal states that on 10.2.2008 he was informed by Manharan (PW-3) that his son has met with an accident whereupon he went to the place of occurrence with Laxmikant Shantanu and Hridaylal and found dead body of his son Ashok Kumar lying by the side of the road and there was collision between the jeep and the motorcycle. He also found that the motorcycle rider also died in the said accident. He lodged report Ex.P/1 and is also a witness to the inquest memo Ex.P/2. He admits his signature on these documents from A to A part. 6 12. PW-2 Suresh Kumar, eyewitness to the incident, has stated that on the date of accident, he was going on motorcycle with his elder brother Devnarayan from Bedhva to Pathariya, the motorcycle was being ridden by Devnarayan and on the way, a jeep coming from Dhamtari side in a rash and negligent manner, which was being driven by the applicant, dashed the motorcycle as a result of which Devnarayan died and he suffered fracture in his leg. He remained firm in his statement. PW-6 Dr. RK Soni states that upon examination of Suresh Kumar he noticed fracture in his right leg and advised for x-ray vide Ex.P/5. Upon x-ray examination, he confirmed fracture in the lower part of the leg vide Ex.P/6. 13. Learned trial Court considering the evidence of the eyewitness Suresh Kumar (PW-2), Ishwar (PW-4) and other prosecution witnesses coupled with the corresponding medical evidence and the evidence of DW-1 Premlal as also the manner in which the accident took place, held the applicant guilty u/s 279, 338, 304A of IPC on two counts which has been subsequently upheld by the learned appellate Court by the impugned order. Having gone through the oral and documentary evidence including the medical evidence on record, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the said finding of the Courts below. Therefore, conviction of the applicant u/s 279, 338, 304A of IPC on two counts being based on proper appreciation of evidence on record is hereby affirmed. 7 14. As regards sentence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 3 SCC 287, held in para 9 of its judgment as under: "9. Western jurisprudes 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 8 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." 15. The learned trial Court awarded fine sentence u/s 279 & 338 of IPC and RI for one year with fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 304A of IPC on two counts. The applicant has deposited the entire fine amount. He was on bail during trial as well as during pendency of the appeal and this revision, and did not misuse the liberty. No criminal antecedents of the applicant is recorded in the arrest memo (Ex.P/8). Therefore, keeping in view of the aforesaid observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the incident took place way back in the year 2008 and the applicant remained in jail for a period of 45 days, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in sending him back to jail at this stage and ends of justice would be served if his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. 16. In the result, the revision is allowed in part. While maintaining conviction of the applicant u/s 279, 338, 304A of IPC on two counts, his substantive jail sentence on both counts u/s 304A of IPC is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. However, the fine sentence of Rs.1,000/- imposed by the trial Court u/s 304A of IPC is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- on each count. The fine amount already deposited shall be adjusted accordingly. In default of payment of this fine amount, the 9 applicant shall have to undergo additional RI for three months. The fine amount so deposited by the applicant shall be disbursed to the dependents/legal heirs of the deceased persons as compensation by the trial Court after due verification. 17. The applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, in view of provisions of Section 481 of BNSS his bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today. The record of the trial Court along with copy of this order be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. A copy of this judgment be also forwarded to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary action. Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2026.05.12 14:36:36 +0530