1 2026:CGHC:25274 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 720 of 2011 1 - Romu Sahu, S/o Shyamlal Sahu, Aged about 27 years, R/o Bhanpuri Raipur, Tahsil & District- Raipur (C.G.). ... Applicant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through the District Magistrate, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. A.S. Rajput, Advocate For Respondent(s)/ State : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, P.L. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order On Board 22.06.2026 1. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.), vide judgment dated 06.08.2011 passed in Criminal Case No. 360/2006, found the applicant guilty of the 2 offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 (three counts) and 304-A (three counts) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 279 of IPC Fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo RI for 20 days U/s 337 of IPC Fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo RI for 20 days U/s 304A of IPC RI for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo RI for 20 days 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence, the applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 94/2011 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari (C.G.). The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari (C.G.), vide judgment dated 23.11.2011, partly allowed the appeal and modified the judgment of the trial Court. The conviction and sentence of the applicant were maintained as under:- 3 Conviction Sentence Under Section 337 of IPC Fine of Rs. 500/- Under Section 304-A of IPC R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (All the sentences to run concurrently) 3. The prosecution case, as presented before the learned trial Court, is that on 21.04.2006, the complainant, Gopal Prasad, along with several other persons, attended the marriage ceremony of Ramesh Dewangan and was returning from Dhamtari to Village Bir in a Tata Sumo vehicle. The said vehicle was being driven by the accused Romu. At about 12:30 a.m., when the vehicle reached near the Sambalpur Canal Bridge, the accused allegedly drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and at an excessive speed, as a result of which the Tata Sumo collided with a Metador vehicle from behind. Owing to the impact, the Tata Sumo went out of control and struck the bridge, resulting in a serious accident. In the said incident, Om Prakash, aged about 20 years, sustained simple injuries, whereas Badri Prasad, Naresh Kumar, Premlal, Raju, Pradeep, Chandrahas, Surendra and Deepak suffered grievous injuries. Bharat, Kamal, Raju and Manish succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. On the report lodged by the complainant, Gopal Prasad, a merg intimation was recorded at Police Station Arjuni. Pursuant 4 thereto, a criminal case was registered and investigated. Upon completion of the investigation, the police found sufficient material indicating commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code by the accused and accordingly filed a charge-sheet before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari in Crime No. 91/2006. 4. In support of its case, prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses. 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. In his defence, the accused examined one witness. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court, vide judgment dated 06.08.2011, held the applicant guilty of the offences charged and convicted and sentenced him as detailed in para 1 of this judgment. Thereafter, the applicant preferred an appeal against the said judgment. The learned Appellate Court, by the impugned judgment dated 23.11.2011, partly allowed the appeal and modified the judgment passed by the Trial Court. Hence this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the impugned judgment suffer from serious legal and factual infirmities. The 5 courts below failed to appreciate that the prosecution case is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction rests solely on interested witnesses, while no independent witness was examined despite the occurrence allegedly taking place in circumstances where such evidence could have been available. Further, there was unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. The courts below overlooked these discrepancies and recorded conviction on assumptions and presumptions rather than reliable evidence. He further submits that the prosecution has also failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances. The seizure of the alleged articles was not proved in accordance with law, the seized material was not duly identified and produced, and the evidence on record does not satisfactorily connect the applicant with the alleged offence. In view of these factors, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, learned counsel for the applicant submits that, in the event this Court arrives at the conclusion that the conviction recorded against the applicant is sustainable in law, the sentence imposed may be reconsidered on the question of quantum. It is contended that the incident pertains to the year 2006 and the present revision has remained pending since 2011. At the time of the incident, the applicant was approximately 27 years of age and has already undergone incarceration for about one and a half months. It is further submitted that the applicant remained on bail throughout the trial proceedings as well as during the pendency of 6 the appeal and duly complied with all conditions of bail without ever misusing the liberty granted to him. It is also pointed out that the entire fine amount imposed by the learned Trial Court has already been deposited. In view of these circumstances, it is prayed that this Court may take a lenient view in the matter of sentence and reduce the substantive term of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the applicant. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the conviction recorded by the Appellate Court is based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record. It is contended that the scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited and since no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error is discernible in the impugned judgment, the same warrants no interference by this Court. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 9. Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the learned Trial Court, after due appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the applicant as indicated hereinabove. The learned Appellate Court, on reappraisal of the material on record, partly allowed the appeal preferred by the applicant. This Court finds no illegality, perversity or infirmity in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below regarding the conviction of the applicant for the offences in question. 7 10.As regards the sentence, it is noteworthy that the applicant has been facing criminal proceedings since 2006 and nearly two decades have elapsed since the incident. Considering his age at the relevant time, the fact that he remained on bail throughout the trial, appeal, pendency of the present revision without misusing the liberty granted to him, he has already deposited the fine amount and has undergone incarceration for about one and a half months, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be adequately served by reducing the substantive sentence to the period already undergone by the applicant. However, the fine amount is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. 11. In the result, the revision stands partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant under Sections 337 and 304-A of the IPC is hereby affirmed. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed under Section 304-A IPC is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by the applicant. The applicant is further directed to deposit a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 304-A IPC, failing which he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Upon deposit of the aforesaid fine amount, the learned Trial Court shall, after due verification and in accordance with law, disburse the same to the dependents/legal heirs of the deceased. The fine amount, if any, already deposited by the applicant shall be adjusted accordingly. 8 12. The applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months as provided under Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 13. The Trial Court's record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV