1 2026:CGHC:21907 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 766 of 2016 Jageshwar Sinha S/o Dayaram Sinha, aged about 30 years, R/o Faraseguda Bakelpara P. S. Bhanpuri Revenue and Civil District Bastar (C.G.) ... Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through the P. S. Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Applicant : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Mr. Himanshu Yadu, P.L. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order On Board 11 .05.2026 1. This revision has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.08.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 11/2015 affirming the judgment dated 13.08.2015 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 406/2012 whereby the applicant has been held Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 guilty under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC and considering the provisions of Section 71 of IPC, the offence under Section 304A of IPC being inclusive of offence under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC, sentenced the applicant under Section 304A of IPC to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 year and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, to suffer additional R.I. for 15 days. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that the complainant, Krishna Kumar Vaidya, lives in the village Sonabal, currently in the hospital ward of Kondagaon under the Kondagaon police station, and works as a paper distributor. On 27.07.09, at around 5 a.m., he was on his way to distribute papers when he came to know that an accident had occurred near the Bhelwapadar Jagdalpur check post. Upon reaching the spot, he found that Maheshwar, Hiralal, Smt. Phulmati Bai and Lokeshwar Nag were dashed by the offending vehicle red-orange coloured truck bearing Registration No. CG-04/ZC-1745 which was being driven by the accused/applicant Jageshwar Sinha in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which Hiralal and Maheshwar sustained injuries whereas, Smt. Phulmati Bai and Lokeshwar Nag sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Upon receiving the information, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the accused in FIR No. 250/09. After the accident, the injured were taken to the hospital, and the deceased were subjected to post-mortem. In the investigation, a spot map of the incident was prepared and witnesses were examined and after completing necessary investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the learned trial Court. 3. In support of its case, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. 3 Thereafter, statement of the accused/applicant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. 4. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record by the judgment dated 13.08.2015 convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in para 1 of this order. Subsequently, by the impugned judgment dated 09.08.2016 the learned appellate Court has affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Hence this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the impugned judgment is legally unsound, perverse, and therefore liable to be set aside. It is submitted that both the learned trial court and the learned appellate court erred in placing reliance on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, despite the fact that their evidence does not support the prosecution’s case. The courts below allegedly failed to properly consider the cross-examination of the witnesses and arrived at an erroneous conclusion holding the applicant guilty. The prosecution witnesses did not corroborate the contents of the F.I.R. or their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., thereby rendering the judgment legally untenable. Moreover, there exist significant contradictions and omissions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, which cannot be legally sustained. In view of these factors, 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 appellant is just and proper, 4 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 i.e., 30 years and applicant has remained in jail for a period of 15 days. It is also submitted that applicant was on bail during trial and also during the pendency of appeal and he did not misuse the liberty extended to him and fine amount has already been deposited by the applicant with the trial Court. He prays that these factors be considered for reducing the period of imprisonment imposed by the courts below to the period of imprisonment already undergone. 6. 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. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 8. Learned trial Court considering the evidence of P.W.-2 Maheshwar Nag, PW-04 Mukaram Nag, PW-05 Satyanarayan, PW-06 Roopdhar Singh Baig, PW-07 Nandlal Sethia and PW-09 Vanshuram @ Anshuram Kashyap, recorded a finding that it is the applicant who by driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner dashed the scooty of the deceased and in the said accident Hiralal sustained simple injuries, Maheshwar sustained grievous injuries, whereas Lokeshwar and Smt. Phulmati Bai died on the spot which has been proved by the evidence of P.W-10 Dr. Smt. Rajni Thakur who conducted postmortem of both the deceased. Thus, considering the overall evidence, including ocular and medical evidence on record, the trial Court held the applicant guilty 5 of the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC and and considering the provisions of Section 71 of IPC, the offence under Section 304A of IPC being inclusive of offence under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC, sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. In appeal, the appellate Court also did not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court and accordingly, affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. 9. Having gone through the evidence of the eyewitnesses and the medical evidence, the manner in which the incident 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 by the impugned judgment. 10. So far as considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the manner in which the incident occurred, more than 16 years ago, the age of the applicant i.e., 46 years, as per arrest memo he has no criminal antecedents, he was on bail during trial and appeal as also during pendency of this revision and he did not misuse the liberty so granted, he has deposited the entire fine amount and remained in jail for about 15 days. 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 the fine amount is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. 11. In the result, the revision is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of the applicant under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC, the substantive jail sentence imposed under Section 304A of IPC 6 is reduced to the period already undergone. The applicant has already deposited the entire fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- with the trial Court. He is directed to pay additional fine of Rs.9,000/- under Section 304A of IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 03 months. On deposit of the fine amount, entire amount of Rs. 10,000/- shall be disbursed to the dependents/family members of both the deceased equally by the trial Court after due verification. The applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds stand discharged. 12. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS 2023, the applicant 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 fo six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 13. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE U.K. Raju