Ram Kumar Upadhyay vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3997 Chatt

                                                                              1


                                                                          NAFR
                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                                   Reserved on 14.06.2022
                                                Pronounced on 24.06.2022
                        CRR No. 672 of 2010
   • Ram Kumar Upadhyay S/o Lt. Sita Ram Upadhyay, R/o Village
     Lakhanpur Junadih, P.S.-Lakhanpur, Distt.-Surguja, C.G.
                                                                ---- Applicant
                                   Versus
   • State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate, Ambikapur, District-
     Sarguja(C.G.)
                                                             ---- Respondent

____________________________________________________________ For Applicant : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Mr. Himanshu Kumar Sharma, P. L. ____________________________________________________________

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

CAV JUDGMENT

1) This criminal revision has been filed being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 06.12.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sarguja (Ambikapur) in Criminal Appeal No.115/2010, upholding the judgment dated 13.07.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja(C.G.) on 13.07.2010 in Criminal Case No.136/2009, whereby the applicant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:-

Conviction Sentence Under Section 279 of I.P.C. R.I. for 2 months and fine of Rs.

200/- and in default of payment of fine additional S.I. for 7 days.

Under Section 337 of I.P.C. R.I. for 2 months and fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine Additional S.I. for 7 days.

Under Section 338 of I.P.C. R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine Additional S.I. for 15 days.

2) The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 07.03.2004 at about 9:00 A.M., complainant Shilochan Gond and Dhani Ram were riding their

bicycles at Lakhanpur Udaipur Main Road nereby Junadih, the present applicant was driving a motor cycle bearing Registration No.CG-15 ZE 7410 in rash and negligent manner and dashed the bicycle of Dhani Ram, wherein Dhani Ram received injuries on his head and cheeks which resulted to bleeding. Two other persons were also sitting on that motor cycle and one of the pillion rider also received injuries. This incident has been witnessed by Lakhia and Ghuran. Complainant Shilochan Gond and witnesses Lakhia and Ghuran took Dhani Ram for medical treatment to the Government Hospital, Lakhanpur, wherein the injured Dhani Ram got admitted and complainant Shilochan Gond lodged the report at Police Station Lakhanpur and thereafter crime was registered as Crime No.50/2004 for the offences under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. After medical examination of injured Dhani Ram and Rajesh Kumar, the X-Ray report reveals the injuries received by the injured persons. Police seized the offending motor cycle and its documents from the present applicant and further the sketch map of the place of incident were prepared by the Police. On 26.03.2004, the present applicant was arrested and on the basis of investigation the charge-sheet was filed by the Police for the aforesaid crime before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code on 20.05.2004 and the case was registered as Criminal Case No.637/2004. After conclusion of trial the learned Magistrate convicted the sentenced the applicant as state above. Thereafter appeal under section 374 Cr.P. was preferred by the applicant before the Session Judge which was also dismissed by the impugned judgment.

3) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that both the Courts below have committed illegality and irregularity in convicting the applicant awarding sentence to him. Both the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence on record to proper prospective and erroneously passed the impugned judgment. There is no clinching evidence against the applicant produced by the prosecution in order to sustain the conviction. He further submits that looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the nature of offence and period of sentence the applicant has served I.e about 7 days, the punishment may be reduced to already served by the applicant.

4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the prosecution by production of prudent and cogent evidence has been able to

prove the guilt of the applicant and the evidence which has been brought on record is sufficient to hold the applicant guilty of the aforesaid offences. Therefore, the Courts below have not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in convicting the applicant and sentenced him as above. He further submits that since both the Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence, therefore, in the revisional jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court the re-appreciation of the evidence on record cannot be done, therefore, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record, evidence brought on record with utmost circumspection and meticulously perused both the impugned judgments.

6) The learned JMFC after appreciation of evidence brought before it came to a conclusion that applicant herein committed the crime under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC the learned Magistrate relied upon the statements of PW-1 Shilochan, PW-2 Ghuran, PW-3 Dhani Ram and PW-7 Moharsai, came to conclusion that the applicant was rashly and negligently driving the vehicle and dashed to the complainant Dhani Ram. After appreciation of entire material available on record, the learned Magistrate relying upon the statements of PW-4 Dr. P.S. Kerketta and PW-10 Dr. M. K. Jain, came to a categorical conclusion that victim Dhani Ram sustained injuries and also suffered fracture.

7) On the basis of evidence produced before the learned JMFC, the applicant is convicted and sentenced as stated above.

8) An appeal having been preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, the learned Sessions Judge did not find any merits of the appeal and after re- appreciating the evidence on record uphold the judgment passed by the learned JMFC.

9) Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have upheld the conviction and sentence of the applicant as stated above and after having gone through the entire material on record, this Court comes to a conclusion that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are justified and the learned counsel for the applicant could not demonstrate any jurisdictional error or illegality during the course of argument. Hence, the finding with regard to conviction of the applicant as stated above are affirmed.

10) The next submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the

sentence awarded by the Courts below may kindly be reduced to the sentence the applicant has already undergone in the interest of justice.

11) This Court has considered the facts and circumstances of the case and finds that the offence was committed in the year 2004, the applicant was convicted and sentenced by the JMFC in 2010, the appeal against his conviction and sentence was dismissed on 06.12.2010 and the applicant was released on bail on 13.12.2010 by this Hon'ble Court. The applicant was convicted for offence punishable under section 337, the punishment may extent to 6 months or with fine which may extent to Rs.5,00/- or with both, likewise under Section 338 the punishment may extent to two years or with fine which may extent to Rs.1,000/- or with both and Section 279 the punishment may extent to 6 months or with fine which may extent to Rs.5,00/- or with both.

12) Looking to the nature of offence and particularly to the fact that incident took place about 18 years ago, that at the time of incident accused/applicant was a young offender of 25 years and at present he must be 43 years of age, the fact that he has already remained in jail for so many days, keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of George Pon Paul Vs. Kanagalet and others, (2009) 13 SCC 478 wherein considering the fact that the fine amount has been deposited and paid to the victim as also the long passage of time, the accused was sentenced to the period already undergone, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in sending the accused/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 with enhancement of fine. Therefore the applicant is convicted and sentenced as mentioned below :-

        Conviction                                     Sentence
Under Section 279 of I.P.C.               Sentence already served/undergone
                                          and fine of Rs. 5,00/- and in default
                                          of payment of fine additional Simple
                                          Imprisonment for 7 days.
Under Section 337 of I.P.C.               Sentence already served/undergone
                                          and fine of Rs.500/- and in default of
                                          payment of fine Additional Simple
                                          Imprisonment for 7 days.
Under Section 338 of I.P.C.               Sentence already served/undergone



                                       and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default
                                       of payment of fine Additional Simple
                                       Imprisonment for 15 days.

13) The applicant is granted 2 months time from today to pay the fine amount failure which the consequence will follow.

14) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part as indicated above.

15) The Copy of the order be sent to trial Court along with record for information and necessary action.

Sd/-

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

parul