Chattisgarh High Court
Tarashankar vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 September, 2025
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 533 of 2009
Tarashankar S/o Late Shri Kashi Prasad Jaiswal Aged About 32 Years R/o
Village Bodar, P.S. Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, Distt.-Korea, C.G.
Digitally
signed by
ALLENA
... Applicant
ANJANI
KUMAR
Date:
versus
2025.09.11
10:09:09
+0530 1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through District- Magistrate, Korea, At
Baikunthpur Chhattisgarh.
2 -(A) Shrimati W/o Late Ramnarayan Aged About 50 Years,
2 -(B) Ku. Shanti D/o Late Ramnarayan Aged About 22 Years,
2 -(C) Ajay Kumar S/o Late Ramnarayan Aged About 18 Years,
2 -(D) Radhe Shyam S/o Late Bhagwat Ram Aged About 48 Years,
All R/o Village - Bodar, Police Station- Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur District-
Koriya Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents
For Applicant : Mr. Divyanand Patel, Advocate on
behalf of Mr. Roshan Verma, Advocate
For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No.2 (A) to 2 (D) : Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Order on Board
10/09/2025
1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed
against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
05.11.2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No.18/2008 by the Sessions
Judge, Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh, arising out of the judgment
dated 29.02.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Baikunthpur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.217/2005 convicting the
present applicant Tarashankar for the offence under Sections 279, 337
and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC') and
imposing fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 279 of IPC and Rs. 500/-
under Sections 337 of IPC and further sentencing him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 304-A of the IPC and
in default thereof, he has to undergo S.I. for three counts under
Sections 279 & 337 IPC. The learned Appellate Court maintained the
conviction and sentence of the present applicant. Hence, this revision.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 25.01.2005 at about 05:30,
the complainant Ramnarayan lodged the report in the police station
Patna alleging that on 25.01.2005 itself when his father Bhagwat Ram
(deceased) was sitting nearby the village road, the applicant/driver
drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner and caused the
accident, in which, his father sustained injuries and died whereas the
boy of the complainant was thrown away and was saved. On the basis
of the said report, the offence was registered against the applicant and
the statement of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the
Cr.P.C.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against
the applicant before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baikunthpur,
Chhattisgarh. The accused/applicant abjured the guilt and prayed for
trial.
4. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on
record, the Court of learned JMFC, Baikunthpur vide judgment dated
29.02.2008, convicted the applicant under Sections 279, 337 and 304-
A of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this
judgment. The learned Appellate Court, affirmed the judgment of
conviction and sentence imposed upon the present applicant. Hence,
this revision.
5. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to
challenge the conviction of the applicant but is challenging the
sentence part, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further
submits that the applicant has remained in jail for 13 days i.e. from
05.11.2009 to 17.11.2009, he is facing the lis since 2005 i.e. for more
than 20 years. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal
antecedents. While drawing attention to the affidavit dated 24.07.2022
showing compromise, it was further submitted that the matter has been
settled between the applicant and the legal heirs of the deceased
(Respondents No.2A to 2D) as such, this matter may be disposed of in
terms of Nair Mohan Sivaram vs. State of Kerala reported in (2017) 11
SCC 514. This apart, the fine amount has already been deposited
before the concerned trial Court. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded
to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by
him.
6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel supports the impugned
judgment and submits that after considering every aspect of the matter,
the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have rightly convicted and
sentenced the applicant, which warrants no interference.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents 2 (A) to 2 (D),
legal representatives of the deceased Bhagwat Ram submits that
affidavit has been filed about the amicable settlement arrived at
between the applicant and the legal heirs of the deceased Bhagwat
Ram and looking to the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in
the above case, the matter may be disposed of.
8. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and
perused the record.
9. As per order dated 22.08.2022, the applicant was directed to implead
the legal representatives of deceased - Bhagwat Ram i.e. Respondent
No.2A to 2D, who have filed an affidavit dated 24.07.2022 stating
therein that the matter has been settled.
10. Considering the statements of Parvati Bai (P.W.1) and Raimta Bai
(P.W.6) supported with the other evidence available on record, this
Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Trial
Court as well as the Appellate Court being based on the evidence
available on record is correct finding. Thus, I hereby affirm the
conviction of the applicant.
11. As regards the sentence part of the applicant, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and further considering the facts that
applicant has remained in jail for about 13 days, he is facing the lis
since 2005 i.e. for more than 20 years, he has no criminal antecedent
and further, the fine amount has already been deposited and further
considering the matter has been settled between the applicant and the
legal heirs of the deceased and also in the light of principles laid down
by the Supreme Court in the above referred matter, I am of the view
that no fruitful purpose would be served to send the applicant back to
jail again, therefore, ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the
conviction imposed upon applicant, the jail sentence awarded to him is
reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, fine
sentence and default sentence awarded by both the Courts shall
remain in tact.
12. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of applicant
under the aforementioned Section is affirmed and he is sentenced to
the period already undergone by him.
13. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, her bail bond
shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of
provision of Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Samhita, 2023.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal)
Judge
Anjani
