1 2026:CGHC:20233 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 244 of 2016 1 - Tanuk Ram Sahu S/o Deenaram Sahu, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Beejabhatha Tahsil Patan, Ranitaraee, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Distt. U.B. Kanker Wrongly Mentioned As Judicial Magistrate Bhanupratappur Distt. U. B. Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Aveleen Juneja, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 30.04.2026 1. The present revision arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.03.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanupratappur, District-U.B. Kanker (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 08/2014, whereby the learned appellate Court has affirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused/applicant as awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhanupratappur vide judgment dated 26.03.2014 passed in Criminal Case No. 550/2013. The conviction and sentence of the applicant are as under:- SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.05.01 15:58:36 +0530 2 Conviction Sentence U/s 279 of IPC S.I. for 06 months and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount S.I. for 01 month. U/s 337 of IPC S.I. for 06 months and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount S.I. for 01 month. U/s 338 of IPC S.I. for 02 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount S.I. for 01 month. U/s 304-A of IPC S.I. for 02 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount S.I. for 01 month. U/s 66/192-A of MV Act Fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine amount S.I. for 10 days. U/s 97(1)/177 of MV Act Fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine amount S.I. for 10 days. (All the sentences were directed to run concurrently) 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.04.2009, the complainant had gone in a marriage procession to attend his relative’s wedding. The vehicle Metador bearing registration No. C.G.07ZB0289 was being driven by the applicant. Near Bhodiya Dhakapara Main Road, the applicant drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, causing the vehicle to overturn. Consequently, the complainant and other occupants sustained injuries, and one person succumbed to the injuries. With respect to the said incident, an offence was registered against the applicant at Police Station Bhanupratappur. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the learned Trial Court, which, upon trial, held the accused guilty. 3. So as to hold the accused/applicant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 07 witnesses and exhibited 34 documents. Statement of the accused/applicant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charge leveled against him and pleaded innocence and false 3 implication in the case. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that she is not pressing the revision insofar as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine her arguments only to the sentence. She further submits that the incident is alleged to have taken place in the year 2009. More than 16 years have elapsed since then, presently the applicant is aged about 62 years, he has already remained in jail for about 14 days and he has no criminal antecedents, by considering all these aspects, it is prayed that the applicant may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him in the interest of justice. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supports the impugned judgments, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for applicant and submits that in the said incident, 15 persons suffered simple injuries, whereas 05 persons suffered grievous injuries, and a person namely Dukalva died due to the said incident 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgments. 7. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses, namely Jahdeep Singh (PW-1), Santram Yadav (PW-2), Chhanu Yadav (PW-3), Udekaran (PW- 4), Sheetal Sidar (PW-5), Satte Singh Negi (PW-6), Sanjay Kumar (PW-07) and Dr. Sumit Dhruv, the involvement of the accused/applicant in the crime in question stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by both the Courts below with regard to the conviction of the applicant under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of the IPC and Sections 66/192-A and 97(1)/177 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. 8. As regards sentence, in the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1977) 3 SCC 287, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that if you are to punish a 4 man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries and held in para-9 as follows: “9. Western jurisprudes and 'sociologists, from their own angle have struck a like note. Sir Samual Romilly, critical of the brutal penalties in the then Britain, said in 1817 : "The laws of England are written in blood". Alfieri has suggested : 'society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it’. George Nicodotis, Director of Criminological Research Centre, Athens, Greece, maintains that 'Crime is the result of the lack of the right kind of education.' It is thus plain that crime is a pathological aberration, that the criminal can ordinarily be redeemed, that the State has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub- culture that leads to anti-social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by re-culturisation. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology is the individual, and goal is salvaging him for society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today views sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of social defense. We, therefore consider a therapeutic, rather than an in 'terrorem' outlook, should prevail in our criminal courts, since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. In the words of George Bernard Shaw : 'If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries'. We may permit ourselves the liberty to quote from Judge Sir Jeoffrey Streatfield : “If you are going to have anything to do with the criminal Courts, you should see for yourself the conditions under which prisoners serve their sentences.” 9. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and keeping in view the fact that maximum sentence imposed upon the applicant is 02 years simple imprisonment, out of which he has already served the jail sentence about 14 days, no criminal antecedent of the applicant is recorded in the arrest memo (Ex-P/7), he has studied upto 5th class and works as a driver, the incident pertains to the year 2009 i.e., more than 17 years ago, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served 5 by sending him back to jail again, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 10. Accordingly, the conviction of the applicant under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of the IPC and Sections 66/192-A and 97(1)/177 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is maintained, however, his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him, i.e., 14 days. The fine imposed on the applicant by the trial Court shall remain intact. 11. Consequently, the revision is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 12. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender in this case. However, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC. 13. Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Sourabh P.