1 2026:CGHC:25803 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No.1144 of 2016 1 - Jageshwar Tamrakar S/o Budhmal Tamrakar Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Anandpur, Purur, Police Station Gurur, District Balod, Chhattisgarh Applicant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Applicant (s) : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Mr. Kanhaiya Ram Yadav, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 24/06/2026 1. This revision has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.09.2016 passed by the learned Session Judge, Dhamtari in Criminal Appeal No.26/2015, arising out of the judgment and conviction and order of sentence dated 28.02.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagri passed in Criminal Case Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 No.28/2014, whereby the applicant has been convicted under Sections 279 & 304-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 months and fine of Rs.100/- and RI for 2 years and fine of Rs.300/-, respectively. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18.04.2014 the applicant was driving the vehicle bearing Registration No.CG-04-FB-2225 rashly and negligently and dashed the deceased Pramod Nag, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and died. Thereafter a case was registered against the applicant and the charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate concerned. The learned Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence convicted and sentenced the applicant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. The finding of the learned Trial Court was also affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, against which the present revision has been filed by the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the impugned judgment is legally unsound, perverse, and therefore is 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. Moreover, there exists 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 3 ultimately comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the applicant is just and proper, then considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 2014 and revision is of the year 2016, presently the age of the applicant is about 60 years and he remained in jail for a period 2 and half months and the applicant never misused the liberty extended to him by this Court and fine amount has already been deposited by the applicant with the trial Court, therefore, the applicant may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that, upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court and Appellate Court have rightly found the applicant guilty of the aforesaid offences. It is further contended that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited and does not warrant interference in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 6. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses has rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in paragraph 01 of this judgment. I am of the view that the trial Court and the Appellate Court have not committed any illegality or infirmity in affirming the conviction of the applicant for the aforesaid sections. 4 7. Now, considering the question of sentence, as the applicant is facing criminal trial since 2014 and thereafter more than 12 years has elapsed, presently he is aged about 60 years and has never misused the liberty granted by this Court and he has already deposited the entire fine amount and remained in jail for about 2 and half months, therefore, 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/-. 8. In the result, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the applicant under Sections 279 & 304-A of IPC, the substantive jail sentence imposed thereunder is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The applicant has already deposited the entire fine amount of Rs.400/- with the trial Court, as such after adjustment he is directed to pay additional fine of Rs.9,600/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 03 months. 9. On deposit of the fine amount, entire amount of Rs.9,600/- shall be disbursed to the dependents/legal heirs of the deceased by the trial Court after due verification. The applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds stand discharged. 10. 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 5 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 applicant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. 11. 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 Nirala