Dilip Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6803 Chatt

                                    1

                                                                NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                  Criminal Revision No.765 of 2014


Dilip Kumar S/o Girdhari Lal Aged About 22 Years R/o. Vill. Phuleta,
P.S. Kansabel, Civil And Rev. Distt. Jashpur C.G.   ---- Applicant
                                  Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, P.S. Kansabel, Distt.-Jashpur,
C.G.                                         ----Non-Applicant


For Applicant:                Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State:      Shri Shakti Singh Thakur, PL.


              Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
                            Order on Board
15.11.2022

1.

This Criminal Revision has been preferred by the

accused/Applicant against the impugned judgment dated 17.09.2014

passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur in Criminal Appeal

No.63/2013 whereby, he has been convicted under Section 304-A

IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.1,000/-

with usual default stipulation.

2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 10.12.2012, father of

the deceased namely Mohan Ram (PW-1) gave merg intimation

alleging that on the date of incident at about 2.30 in the noon, while

his son deceased Nand Kumar was going to school on his foot from

the side of Manbahal Chouhan's shop, then the present Applicant

while driving his pickup vehicle bearing No.CG 15 AC 0864 in a rash

and negligent manner, dashed him and thus caused injury on the

back side of his head. The deceased died while being taken to the

hospital. FIR (Ex.P-1) was registered vide Crime No.216/2012 at P.S

Kansabel, District Jashpur. During enquiry, Panchanama of incident

(Ex.P-4) was prepared and the vehicle was seized from the

possession of the present Applicant vide Ex.P-5. Postmortem was

conducted vide Ex.P-5 by Dr. Sunil Lekhas (PW-5) vide Ex.P-8 in

which, he opined that cause of death was head injury on account of a

road accident. Spot map (Ex.P-9) was prepared. Statement of the

witnesses have been recorded and the Applicant has been arrested

on 10.12.2012.

3. After completion of investigation, charge has been filed and the

prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 16

documents vide Exs.P-1 to 16A. The Applicant has abjured his guilt

and examined one witness in his defence. Statement of the accused/

Applicant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure in which, he denied the allegations levelled

against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.

4. After conclusion of trial, upon appreciation of oral and

documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court has

convicted the Applicant and sentenced him as mentioned above,

which was allowed by the appellate Court. Hence this Revision.

5. At the outset, Shri Agrawal, learned counsel for the Applicant

submits that he is not seriously disputing the judgment of conviction

and only submits that the incident took place 10 years ago and the

Applicant is aged 22 years having no criminal past, therefore,

considering all these aspects, he may be sentenced to the period

already undergone by him.

6. Per contra, Shri Thakur, learned State Counsel strongly

supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the Applicant

has rightly been convicted for the offence under the said Section and

therefore, the same does not call for any interference either on merits

or on the sentence part.

7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the

record of the Court below with utmost circumspection.

8. It is evident from the postmortem report (Ex.P-8) of the

deceased Nand Kumar that cause of death was head injury and Dr.

Sunil Lekhas (PW-5) has proved his report by stating that the death

was caused on account of a road accident. Manbahal Ram (PW-2)

has also categorically deposed that on the date of accident, he was in

his shop, the present Applicant dashed the deceased and thereafter,

ran way. Santosh Kumar (PW-3) has also given a similar version that

after the incident, the people nearby have tried to stop the vehicle of

the Applicant but he did not stop and ran away. Thereafter two

persons chased him with their motorcycle and stopped him but

nothing could be elicited from the cross-examination of these

witnesses. Father of the deceased Mohan Ram (PW-1) after having

known the incident, lodged the FIR at police station Kansabel vide

Ex.P-1 and thereafter, merg was registered vide Ex.P-2. Head

Constable Narendra Bhat (PW-9) has prepared the spot map (Ex.P-

4). The vehicle involved in the accident was seized from the

possession of present Applicant and was proved by Narendra Bhat

(PW-9), who has prepared the spot map (Ex.P-4) vide Ex.P-5.

Naksha Panchnama (Ex.P-9) was proved by Ramsadan (PW-6),

Anandram Paikra (PW-7), Darsharam Chouhan (PW-8) and Rajesh

Kumar (PW-10).

9. The appellate Court has disbelieved the evidence of Narayan

Yadav (DW-1) by holding that this witness was not on the vehicle in

question as nobody has seen him after the incident and has been

prepared by the accused/Applicant to save himself, therefore, he is

not reliable. The appellate Court has further, upon appreciation of the

aforesaid evidence, rightly come to the conclusion that the

accused/Applicant, while driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent

manner, caused death of the deceased Nand Kumar and also did not

stop the vehicle after the incident which speaks volumes, therefore,

the findings recorded by the said Court is based on material

evidence, which is hereby affirmed.

10. Accordingly, the conviction of the accused/Applicant under

Section 304-A IPC is justified.

11. Now, coming to the question of sentence, considering the age

of the Applicant and further considering that the incident took place

more than 10 years ago and the Applicant is in jail since 17.09.2014

and his sentence was suspended by this Court vide order dated

01.12.2014, taking into consideration the period he has already

undergone, ends of justice would be served if the Applicant is

sentenced to the period already undergone by him and the fine

sentence imposed by the learned trial Court shall remain in tact.

Ordered accordingly. The Applicant is reported to be on bail. His bail

bonds shall remain in operation for a period of 6 months from today in

view of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. He shall appear before the higher

Court as and when directed.

12. The Revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-

above.

13. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for

necessary compliance.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priya