1 2026:CGHC:23949 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 414 of 2016 Santram Jain S/o Hariram Jain Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Makarikhuna P.S. Kanker Rev. And Civil District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The P.S. Kanker District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Abhishek Nirala, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Praveen Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Amya Bhushan, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J Order on Board 16/06/2026 Challenge in this revision is to the legality and validity of the judgment dated 30.4.2016 passed by Sessions Judge, North Bastar, Kanker in Criminal Appeal No.02/2016 whereby the appeal preferred 2 against the judgment dated 12.1.2016 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Bastar, Kanker in Criminal Case No.672/2012 convicting and sentencing the applicant under Sections 279, 338 & 304A of IPC, has been dismissed. The applicant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code. Fine of Rs.400/-, in default thereof to suffer SI for two months. Under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code. Fine of Rs.400/-, in default thereof to suffer SI for two months. Under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code. RI for one year, pay a fine of Rs.200/- and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for one month. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.07.2012, the deceased, Ghururam Jain, was returning home with his daughter, Kumari Patrika Jain, after picking her up from her tuition classes at Bazar Para, Kanker. At about 6:00 PM, near the market area, their motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-19-B/7514 was hit by a truck coming from the opposite direction. As a result of the accident, both Ghururam Jain and his daughter sustained serious injuries. They were taken to Komaldev Hospital, Kanker, for treatment. On receiving information from the hospital, Police Station Kanker registered FIR No. 189/2012 under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC against an unknown truck driver. During treatment, at around 11:00 PM on the same night, Ghururam Jain succumbed to his injuries. The injured Kumari Patrika 3 Jain was referred to Raipur for specialized medical treatment. During the investigation, statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded, inquest report and spot map were prepared and the dead body was sent for postmortem. On 21.07.2012, Truck No. CG-08-ZC-0147 along with its documents was seized from its owner, Mohammed Asif. The owner also stated that the vehicle was being driven by the accused Santaram Jain at the time of the accident. Thereafter, the accused was arrested, and the seized truck was subjected to mechanical inspection. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused Santaram Jain u/s 279, 338 and 304A of IPC followed by framing of charges accordingly by learned trial Court. The accused abjured the charges and prayed for trial. 03. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. The accused in his statement u/s 313 of CrPC denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no evidence was adduced in his defence. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court by the judgment dated 12.1.2016 convicted and sentenced the applicant u/s 279, 338 & 304A of IPC which was subsequently affirmed by the appellate Court by the impugned judgment. Hence this revision. 04. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is not pressing this revision on merits, however, he prays for reduction of sentence 4 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 2012, 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 12 days, his jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. Reliance has been placed on the order dated 11.5.2026 of this Court in CRR No.766/2016 in the matter of Jageshwar Sinha Vs. State of Chhattisgarh. 05. 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 and sentencing him accordingly. Therefore, the present revision being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 06. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 07. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the applicant was charged under Sections 279, 338, 304A of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court 5 convicted and sentenced him under the aforesaid sections. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge having found no illegality or infirmity in the findings of the trial Court dismissed the appeal. 08. PW-1 Ku. Patrika Jain, injured eyewitness to the accident, states that on the date of accident while she was returning home with her father deceased Ghururam on motorcycle, the applicant came from opposite direction driving truck bearing No. CG 08 ZC 0147 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed their motorcycle as a result of which her father and herself sustained injuries and during treatment her father died. 09. PW-2 Goverdhan Kunjam and PW-3 Farasram reached the spot after the accident. They state that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the accused. PW-4 Prabhuram Jain and PW- 6 Santaram Jain are hearsay witnesses. 10. PW-5 Anil Mandavi was accompanying the applicant in the truck at the time of accident. He states that at the time of accident, the deceased was going on motorcycle with his daughter Patrika and the accident was caused by the truck of the applicant. He states that the truck was being driven with a moderate speed. However, he states that after the accident, the applicant fled from there with the truck. 11. From the unrebutted evidence of the injured eyewitness PW-1 Ku. Patrika Jain which is corroborated by the evidence of PW-5 Anil 6 Mandavi, it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that it is the accused/applicant who by driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner caused accident in which Ghururam sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. Thus, conviction of the applicant u/s 279, 338 & 304A of IPC recorded by learned trial Court and subsequently affirmed by the learned appellate Court cannot be faulted with. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the accident occurred around 14 years ago, the age of the applicant at present i.e. more than 50 years; as per arrest memo he has no criminal antecedents; he was on bail during trial as well as during pendency of the appeal and this revision, and did not misuse the liberty, and he has remained in jail for 12 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 u/s 304A of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.200/- to Rs.10,000/- with default sentence. 13. In the result, the revision is allowed in part. Conviction of the applicant u/s 279 & 338 of IPC and sentence imposed thereunder are hereby maintained. While maintaining conviction of the applicant u/s 304A of IPC, his substantive jail sentence thereunder is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the fine sentence of Rs.200/- 7 imposed by the trial Court u/s 304A of IPC is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The fine amount already deposited shall be adjusted accordingly. In default of payment of this fine amount, the 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 as compensation by the trial Court after due verification. 14. 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: 2026.06.17 13:09:23 +0530