1 CGHC010001782012 2026:CGHC:29469 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 835 of 2012 Pradeep Kumar Bhagat S/o Late Bahadurram Bhagat Aged About 26 Years R/o Village - Baghima, Ps And Tah. - Jashpurnagar, Distt. - Jashpur C.G., Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through – P.S. - Jashpur, District - Jashpur C.G., Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Saurabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Saurabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State. 2. The applicant has preferred this criminal revision, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 29.12.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District - Jashpur (C.G.), passed in Criminal Appeal No. 78/2012, whereby the appeal preferred by the applicant against the order of his conviction under RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A of Indian Penal Code, and under Sections 66/192(a) and 130/177 of the Motor Vehicle Act, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Jashpur District Jashpur (C.G.), in Criminal Case No. 335/2011, order dated 11.09.2012, has been dismissed. The applicant was convicted and sentenced as follows:- CONVICTION SENTENCE Under Section 279, of Indian Penal Code Fine of Rs. 1000/-. Under Section 337 of Indian Penal Code Fine of Rs. 500/- . Under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for 03 months and fine of Rs. 1000/-. Under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for 06 months and fine of Rs. 10,000/- Under Section 66/192(a) of the Motor Vehicle Act Fine of Rs. 5000/-. Under Section 130/177 of the Motor Vehicle Act Fine of Rs. 100/-. (in case of default of fine amount, 15 days imprisonment for each offences) (All the sentences run concurrently) 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.07.2011 at about 8:00 a.m., the complainant, Hemant Minj, along with Usha, Prabodh, Fiska, Merigrace, Amrensia, Philminyus, Bhaleria, Urlika, Pankaj, Jhibo, Agastus, Jemagrace, Leemakoleta, Gyan Prakash, Asunta, Prasanna, Dinesh and other co-villagers, was travelling to Jashpur Market in a pickup vehicle bearing registration No. CG-14-A-3387. 3 When the vehicle reached near the Marga River, between Marga Dumartoli and Fatehpur, the driver of the said vehicle (the applicant/accused), while driving in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the vehicle, causing it to overturn. As a result of the accident, several passengers sustained injuries and one passenger, namely Urlika Khalko, succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. On the basis of the aforesaid incident, the complainant lodged a First Information Report at Police Station Jashpur. During the course of investigation, the injured persons were medically examined and the post-mortem examination of the deceased, Urlika Khalko, was conducted. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the applicant/accused before the competent Court. 4. The learned Trial Court framed charges against the applicant/accused for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, as well as under Sections 66/192-A and 130/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The applicant/accused denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses. 5. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court convicted the applicant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304- A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66/192-A and 130/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The applicant was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 279 IPC; a fine of Rs.500/- under 4 Section 337 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 338 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 304-A IPC; a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 66/192-A of the Motor Vehicles Act; and a fine of Rs.100/- under Section 130/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In default of payment of fine, the applicant was directed to undergo further imprisonment of fifteen days for each offence. 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, the applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 78/2012 before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur (C.G.). The learned Appellate Court, vide its judgment, affirmed the conviction recorded by the Trial Court. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Appellate Court modified the sentence awarded under Sections 338 and 304-A IPC and reduced the same to rigorous imprisonment for three months along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 338 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 304-A IPC. 7. Being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment affirming the conviction and the modified order of sentence passed by the learned Appellate Court, the applicant has preferred the present Criminal Revision Petition before this Hon’ble Court. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below are contrary to law, facts and evidence available on record and have been rendered without proper appreciation of the material evidence. It is contended that 5 the prosecution story was inherently doubtful and the Courts below erred in placing reliance upon the same despite the absence of cogent evidence establishing rashness or negligence on the part of the applicant. He further submits that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses itself demonstrates that the incident was a mere accident caused due to adverse weather conditions, as it had been raining on the date of occurrence and the road had become muddy and slippery, resulting in the vehicle skidding and overturning. It is argued that none of the prosecution witnesses, including the injured eyewitnesses, have specifically deposed that the applicant was driving the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner. On the contrary, several witnesses have stated that they did not see the applicant driving the vehicle at the relevant time, while others have attributed the accident to the muddy condition of the road. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, which create serious doubt regarding the prosecution case and demolish the allegation of rash and negligent driving. He contends that the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the findings of conviction recorded by the Courts below are unsustainable in law. It is also submitted that the applicant has already deposited the entire amount of fine imposed by the Courts below, and the receipt evidencing such deposit has been brought on record as Annexure A-3. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence be set aside and the applicant be 6 acquitted of all the charges. 9. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposes the revision petition and supports the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below. It is submitted that the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have meticulously appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and have rightly recorded the finding of guilt against the applicant. He contends that the prosecution has successfully established beyond reasonable doubt that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the applicant, resulting in injuries to several passengers and the death of Urlika Khalko. It is further submitted that the testimony of the injured witnesses, coupled with the medical and other corroborative evidence, clearly proves the prosecution case and there is no material illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is prayed that the revision petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 11. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds no merit in the present revision. The applicant has challenged the judgment dated 29.12.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 78/2012, whereby the appeal preferred by the applicant against the 7 judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.09.2012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jashpur, in Criminal Case No. 335/2011 was dismissed and the conviction of the applicant under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66/192-A and 130/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act was affirmed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Appellate Court reduced the substantive sentence awarded under Sections 338 and 304-A IPC. Upon consideration of the evidence available on record, this Court is of the view that both the Courts below have properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and have recorded well- reasoned findings based on the material available on record. No perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error is found in the impugned judgment warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 12. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 29.12.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) calls for no interference and the present criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan