Chattisgarh High Court
Hinchharam vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 August, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 697 of 2010
Order reserved on 14.6.2022
Order pronounced on 5.8.2022
Hinchharam S/o Kanwal Singh, aged about 32 years,
Occupation - Driver, R/o Village Rawa, District Dhamtari, CG
---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Kanker, District
Kanker, CG --- Respondent
For applicant - Shri D.N. Prajapati, Advocate
For respondent/State - Shri Himanshu Kumar Sharma, PL
CAV Order
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
This revision under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.PC has
been preferred against the judgment impugned dated
13.12.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, North Bastar,
Kanker in Criminal Appeal No. 38/2008 whereby the judgment
dated 20.12.2007 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanker
in Criminal Case No. 191/2007 convicting the applicant under
Sections 304-A and 337 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI
for one year thrice for causing the death of three persons, and
RI for one month for causing injury to some persons, has been
affirmed.
2. Facts
of the case in brief are that on 14.2.2002 the
applicant herein while driving the tractor bearing registration
No. CG-05/4396 in a rash and negligent manner hit the jeep
bearing registration No. MP-25-B/0656 as a result of which five
occupants thereof suffered injuries. Smt. Dipika is said to have
died on the spot itself. Subsequently, two women namely
Anuradha Bai and Helan Bai also met with tragic death. On
matter being reported to the police, the offences under
Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC were registered against the
applicant. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was
filed for the aforesaid offences followed by charge being
framed.
3. Learned Magistrate by order dated 20.12.2007 convicted
and the sentenced the present applicant as mentioned above.
On appeal being preferred by the present applicant, his
conviction and sentence came to be affirmed by the judgment
impugned dated 13.12.2010. Hence this revision.
4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the findings
recorded by both the Courts below are not in conformity with
the evidence collected by the prosecution and therefore, the
judgment impugned is liable to be set aside. He further
submits that both the Courts below have committed an error
in ignoring the fact that the driver of the ill-fated jeep himself
was at fault and not the present applicant who was driving the
tractor which is said to have dashed against the jeep in which
the deceased and injured persons were the occupants.
5. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/State
supports the judgment impugned and submits that the
judgment impugned being based on just and proper
appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses is not liable to
be interfered with in this revision.
6. From the perusal of overall evidence in particular that of
Sunil Kumar (PW-1), Budhram (PW-2), Anita (PW-5) it is
apparent that the appellant was driving the tractor at
excessively high speed and though on seeing the tractor
being driven rashly, the driver of the ill-fated jeep had
controlled his vehicle and taken it to the side of the road yet
the tractor driver (the appellant) did not have control over his
vehicle and eventually it dashed the jeep in which number of
people were sitting as passengers. The said accident claimed
three lives and left some injured. Thus the evidence clearly
suggests that the accident had occurred only on account of
rash and negligent driving of the accused/applicant and being
so, his conviction under Section 304-A and 337 IPC is fully
justified and do not require any interference in this revision.
7. As regards sentence, while dealing with the said
question in the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1977 SC 1926 it has been
observed by the Apex Court as under:
"Western jurisdiction 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 Micodotis, 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.'"
8. In the case in hand, the record shows that the applicant
has remained in jail for about two months out of the total
maximum sentence imposed of one year. The accident
claiming three lives and leaving some injured had occurred in
the year 2002 and almost 20 years have passed by since
then. There is no minimum sentence prescribed for the
offence the applicant has been held guilty of. Thus in totality
of the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion
that no useful purpose would be served in again sending the
applicant to jail after such a long lapse of time and thereby
disturbing his already settled family life. Accordingly, keeping
in mind the judgment of the Apex Court referred to above, the
sentence imposed on the accused/applicant is reduced to the
period already undergone by him.
9. Revision is thus partly allowed as indicated above.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge
Jyotishi
