1 2026:CGHC:21704 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 928 of 2016 Dujram S/o Santosh Yadav Aged About 23 Years Caste-Rawat, R/o Bichhibahra, Police Station Gurur, Tahsil Gurur, Civil And Revenue District Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Gurur, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant /State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.05.2026 1. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26.08.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 53/2016, arising out of the judgment and order dated 12.05.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balod, in Criminal Case No. 1059/2014, whereby the applicant was convicted under Section 304-A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 02 years along with a fine of Rs. 500/-, with a further sentence of simple imprisonment for 15 days in default of payment of fine. The applicant was also convicted under ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.05.11 18:46:09 +0530 2 Section 279 of the IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, with a further sentence of simple imprisonment for 15 days in default of payment of fine. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 02.07.2014, the complainant, Narendra Kumar, along with his wife Tameshwari and son Abhishek Sinha, had come to the house of his brother, Jayprakash Sinha, situated in Village Mokha, for preparation of the income and caste certificate of Abhishek. On 04.07.2014, at about 5:00 PM, the complainant’s son, Abhishek, was going towards Dokla Dargahan while riding a bicycle. At that time, the tractor driver, Dujram, drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner, at a high speed, and hit Abhishek Sinha from the front, thereby causing an accident. As a result of the accident, Abhishek sustained injuries on his head and was admitted to Gurur Hospital for treatment, where the doctor declared him dead. The incident was witnessed by Rajesh, Chhannu Ram, and Dani Ram. The complainant lodged a report regarding the incident at the concerned police station. Upon finding sufÏcient evidence against the accused, he was arrested. Since the offence was bailable in nature, he was released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond. Thereafter, upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. 3. After completing the trial, the trial Court passed the impugned judgment and order on 12.05.2016, convicting the applicant under Section 304-A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 02 years along with a fine of Rs. 500/-, with a further sentence of simple imprisonment for 15 days in default of payment of fine. The applicant was also convicted under Section 279 of the IPC and sentenced to pay a fine 3 of Rs. 500/-, with a further sentence of simple imprisonment for 15 days in default of payment of fine. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment dated 12.05.2016, the revisionist preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge Balod, District Balod (C.G.), whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide order dated 26.08.2016 in criminal appeal No. 53/2016. 5. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant/revisionist does not challenge his conviction, learned counsel only emphasized that sentence may be modified suitably by enhancing the fine amount, as the applicant has already undergone near about 01 month and 7 days of jail sentence. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by him may be sufÏce to meet the ends of justice by enhancing the fine amount, which may not amount to enhancement of sentence. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaydev Shrichand Danani v. State of Gujarat reported in 1993 Supp (1) SCC 616. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel, appearing for the non-applicant/State would strongly support the impugned judgment and submits that there is no need to interfere with the sentence. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments of both the Courts and records with utmost circumspection. 8. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the trial Court after considering the materials available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted the applicant for offences punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 02 years along with a fine of Rs. 500/-, with a further sentence of simple imprisonment for 15 days in default of 4 payment of fine and in Section 279 of the IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, with a further sentence of simple imprisonment for 15 days in default of payment of fine. In an appeal preferred by the applicant/revisionist before the appellate Court, whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide order dated 26.08.2016 in criminal appeal No.53/16. Considering the materials available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the learned appellate Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity by afÏrming the order passed by the learned trial Court. 9. Now considering the question of sentence as the criminal trial commenced on 03.12.2014 which continued till 12.05.2016, and though the appeal also continued near about 03 months and this revision petition has been pending since 27.09.2016 and as such from the date of commencement of trial, more than 11 years have been elapsed, considering the age of the applicant at present and further considering that the applicant has already undergone near about 1 month and 7 days of jail sentence and also considering the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant/revisionist i.e. Jaydev Shrichand Danani (supra), there would be no useful purpose to again send the applicant in jail as he has already suffered undergone sentence and also agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. So this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the sentence as RI for 02 years under Section 304-A of the IPC to the period already undergone by the applicant i.e. near about 01 month and 7 days, however fine amount is enhanced from Rs. 500/- to 30,000/- and the same shall not amount to enhancement of sentence, in addition to what he has earlier been deposited before the concerned trial Court. Enhanced fine amount shall be deposited by the applicant within a period of three months from today 5 before the concerned trial Court, failing which he shall undergo the sentence as has been ordered by the trial Court and afÏrmed by the learned appellate Court, Balod (C.G.). Ordered accordingly. 10. The amount of fine so deposited by the applicant before the concerned trial Court shall, in turn, be transmitted by the trial Court to the complainant / father of the deceased (PW-4, namely, Narendra Kumar, S/o late Bhagwani Ram Sinha). 11. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 12. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek