Sharma Netam vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 261 Chatt

                                      1

                                                                        NAFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                           CRR No. 1467 of 2019

   • Sharma Netam S/o Somdhar Netam, Aged About 22 Years R/o Shanti
     Nagar, Naryanpur, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh.

                                                               ---- Petitioner

                                   Versus

   • State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, District
     Narayanpur Chhattisgarh

                                                              ---- Respondent

For Petitioner    : Shri Samir Singh, Advocate.
For Respondent    : Shri Sudhir Sahu, Panel Lawyer.



                  Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J

                              Order On Board

13/01/2023 :

1. The present Revision is directed against the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 27.8.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,

Kondagaon in Criminal Appeal No.5/2019 affirming the conviction

imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No.98/2018

vide judgment dated 13.12.2018 under Sections 337 and 304-A of the

IPC and sentencing the petitioner to undergo RI for 3 months & to pay a

fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for

15 days and to undergo RI for 6 months respectively.

2. Prosecution case is that complainant Mangluram has lodged a complaint

stating that when he was standing in front of his house, at that time, the

offending vehicle i.e. Tata Sumo was going towards Kondagaon side

and the driver of the said vehicle while driving the said vehicle rashly

and negligently dashed the vehicle against one Bharatlal, who suffered

injuries and died during the course of treatment. On the basis of

complaint, offence under Sections 337 and 304-A of the IPC was

registered. During investigation, the offending vehicle i.e. Tata Sumo

was seized by the prosecution. Statements of witnesses including the

injured persons were recorded under Sections161 of the CrPC and after

completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Kondagaon.

3. On the basis of material available on record, learned trial Court framed

the charges under Sections 337 and 304-A of the IPC against the

petitioner. The petitioner denied the charges and claimed to be tried

with a plea of false implication. In order to prove the charges against

the petitioner, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses.

The learned trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and

on the basis of material available, held the petitioner guilty for the

aforesaid offences and convicted and sentenced the petitioner as

mentioned above.

4. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence

passed by the trial Court, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before

the learned Sessions Judge and in turn, the learned Sessions Judge

affirming the judgment passed by the trial Court dismissed the appeal of

the petitioner. Hence this Revision.

5. Admittedly, Gopal Krishna (PW-1), Chandrakant Sahu (PW-4) and

injured Mangluram (PW-10) have been cited as eyewitnesses to the

incident before the trial Court. Gopal Krishna (PW-1), while refusing

to identify the accused persons in the Court, would depose as to how the

incident took place. Likewise, Mangluram (PW-10) would depose in

the similar manner. He did not see as to who opened the door of the

said vehicle, though Ramsai (PW-3) would admit that the petitioner was

sitting on the driver seat of the vehicle and he opened the door of the

vehicle because of which the incident took place. In para-3 of cross-

examination, this witness would state that he did not see the incident.

From his evidence, it is explicit that he was not aware as to who has

caused the incident. (PW-5) Sukkuram and (PW-6) Jururam Uike

would depose in similar fashion.

6. However, the prosecution has examined Chandrakant Sahu (PW-4). He

would depose that on the date of the incident he was going with his

friend on his motorcycle. In examination-in-chief, he explained as to

how the incident has taken place. He would state that after the incident,

he went near the offending vehicle and saw that the petitioner was

sitting on the driver seat of the vehicle. He further stated that the

incident took place because the petitioner has suddenly opened the door

of the vehicle. This witness was treated as eyewitness to the incident

inasmuch as at the time of incident he was passing through the road,

therefore, his presence at the place of incident was natural. He saw that

the deceased and the injured were sitting on their motorcycle and as a

result of the incident, their motorcycle also fell on the ground. The

incident happened in the broad day light and, therefore, he was able to

see the petitioner sitting on the driver seat of the offending vehicle. The

evidence given by this witnesses inspires confidence of the Court, as he

remained firm in the cross-examination and the defence was not able to

elicit anything on the basis of which his evidence could be discarded.

7. The learned appellate Court has also observed that the petitioner should

have taken due care before opening the door of the vehicle. The

petitioner was held to be negligent in opening the door of the vehicle

because of which the incident took place wherein the deceased suffered

injuries and died during the course of treatment. In the circumstances,

the petitioner was held to be responsible for the incident.

8. For the foregoing, this Court is of the view that the learned appellate

Court was fully justified in upholding the conviction and sentence

imposed by the trial Court against the petitioner under Sections 337 and

304-A of the IPC and this Court is not in a position to take a different

view of the matter.

9. Accordingly, conviction imposed on the petitioner under Sections 337

and 304-A of the IPC is affirmed.

10.As per the report received from the Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Narayanpur dated 15.12.2022, the petitioner has already served out the

sentence imposed upon him by the trial Court and he has been released

on 11.2.2020.

11.Since the petitioner has already served out the sentence imposed upon

him on 11.2.2020, no separate order regarding his arrest or surrender is

required in the matter.

12.Consequently, the Revision is dismissed.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Barve