Rajuram, Bhagat vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7424 Chatt

                                        1

                                                                      NAFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                             CRR No.192 of 2012

      • Rajuram Bhagat, S/o Dhaniram Aged about 35 years, Caste -
        Uranw, R/o Village - Kurumkela, Thana and Tah. - Bagicha,
        District - Jashpur, C.G.

                                                              ---- Applicant

                                    Versus

  • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station - Bagicha, District
    - Jashpur, C.G.

                                                          ---- Respondent

For Applicant : Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate and Shri Sudhir Sharma, Advocate For State : Shri Arjit Tiwari, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on board

09.12.2022

1. This criminal revision has been filed under Section 397 read

with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated

25.02.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jashpur, C.G. in

Criminal Appeal No.11/2010 whereby the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence recorded by the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Bagicha in Criminal Case No.89/2008

dated 22.02.2010, wherein the applicant was convicted for the

offence punishable under Section 304 A of IPC and sentenced

to serve S.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default

of fine of amount further S.I. for 15 days has been affirmed.

2. The case of the prosecution, is that, on 19.11.2007 at about

6.00 p.m. the applicant while driving the pick up vehicle bearing

registration No.C.G. 14 A - 1869 rashly and negligently,

dashed the deceased Dinesh Ram from backside,

consequently, he succumbed to the injuries, whereas,

Alexander and Philomon sustained injuries. The merg

intimation was given by Shobhnath (PW-1) to the police station

and on the basis of merg, the FIR (Ex.P/2) was registered. The

dead body was sent for postmortem and same was conducted

by Dr. Sunil Lakda (PW-14) who found four injuries and fracture

of tibia and fibula bones of right leg. The doctor has opined the

cause of death on account of fracture of neckbone and nature

of death to be accidental vide his report Ex.P/8. The vehicle

was mechanically examined by Mohd. Asgar (PW-10). After

completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed

before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. The learned

trial Court framed charges under Section 279, 337, 337 and

304 A of the IPC against the present applicant. The applicant

abjured the charges and pleaded not guilty.

3. The prosecution exhibited several documents and examined 14

witnesses to prove the guilt of the applicant. The learned trial

Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence,

convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in the

opening para.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the vehicle was

not being driven rashly and negligently by the applicant, the

deceased was in drunken condition and the registration number

of the vehicle was not known to any of the witnesses and on

mere suspicion the present applicant has been implicated in

this case. He further submits that if this Court comes to

conclusion that the applicant has committed the offence, the

sentence awarded may be reduced to the period already

undergone which is about one month.

5. On the other hand learned counsel for the State opposes the

submissions made by Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, counsel for the

applicant. Mr. Tiwari, P.L. submits that it it quite vivid from the

evidence of Shobhnath (PW-1), Injor Sai (PW-2) and injured

witnesses Alexander Minz (PW-8) that the applicant was driving

the vehicle rashly and negligently, whereas the deceased was

pedestrian going towards his house. He further submits that the

prosecution has proved the ingredients of Section 304 A of the

IPC beyond reasonable doubt against the present applicant

and the criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the

records with utmost circumspection.

7. FIR was lodged by Shobhnath (PW-1) on 19.11.2007 at about

19.30 hours whereas the time of the incident is 19.11.2007

about 06.00 p.m. and thus FIR was lodged immediately after

the incident. In the FIR, name of the vehicle is mentioned as

white color pickup bearing registration No. CG 14 A - 1869. In

the FIR it is stated that while the deceased was going towards

his house, the driver of the offending vehicle dashed and blown

the deceased ten feet from the backside and the persons who

were traveling in the pickup namely Alexander Minz and

Philomon fell down from it. The injured were examined by the

doctor and postmortem of the deceased was also conducted by

the Dr. Sunil Lakda (PW-14) in which injuries were found and

the nature of death was accidental. Shobhnath (PW-1) who

lodged the merg intimation (Ex.P/1) and on whose instance, the

FIR was registered has supported the case of the prosecution.

This witness has described the manner in which incident took

place and he has also stated the injuries sustained by the

deceased and in cross-examination his evidence remained un-

controverted. Injor Sai (PW-2) who is witness of Naksha

Panchnama (Ex.P/4), has supported the case of the

prosecution. Alexander Minz (PW-8) was traveling in the

offending vehicle, has stated that though the vehicle was driven

slowly, but the deceased was dashed by the same vehicle in

which they were traveling. Philomon (PW-9) has stated that the

vehicle was being driven firmly but at that time it was being

driven at a high speed. Mohd. Asgar (PW-10) who

mechanically examined the vehicle, found various parts of the

vehicle broken. Jai Kumar (PW-12), who is the eye-witness has

stated that the offending vehicle was being driven at a high

speed. Dr. Sunil Lakda (PW-14) who conducted the

postmortem of the deceased has found, the fracture of tibia and

fibula bones of right leg and fracture of neck bone and he

opined that the cause of death was fracture of neck bone and

nature of death was accidental.

8. From the above piece of evidence, it is crystal clear that the

offending vehicle was driven by the present applicant rashly

and negligently and he dashed the deceased. On account of

which, he sustained injuries and succumbed to death,

therefore, learned Court below rightly convicted the present

applicant for the offence punishable under Section 304 A of the

IPC and I do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the

Courts below in this regard. Considering the next contention of

the applicant with regard to sentence part, the learned Courts

below have sentenced the present applicant for S.I. of one year

for offence punishable under Section 304 A of IPC. Considering

the fact that the incident had taken place on 19.11.2007 and at

that time, the age of the applicant was 35 years, further

considering the fact that one person has lost his life in the

accident and relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh

Bakshi1, I am not inclined to reduce the sentence to the period

already undergone. However, instead of sentence of one year

as imposed by the trial Magistrate which has been affirmed by

1 2015 5 SCC 182

the appellate Court is hereby reduced to six months, whereas,

fine amount awarded is not interfered with. It is reported that

the applicant is on bail, his bail bonds are hereby cancelled and

he is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court

immediately.

9. With the aforesaid observations, this criminal revision is

disposed off.

Sd/-

                                                 (Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
yasmin                                                    Judge