Chattisgarh High Court
Kamlesh Sumer Kshatri vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 September, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:47347
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 529 of 2012
Kamlesh Sumer Kshatri S/o Ram Prasad Aged About 29 Years R/o Lalkhadan , P.S.
Torva Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur C.G. ... Revisioner/Appellant/Accused
versus
Digitally
signed by
ALLENA
ANJANI
KUMAR State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Through - District Magistrate Bilaspur C.G.
Date:
2025.09.16
17:42:24 ... Respondent/Prosecution
+0530
For Revisioner : Ms. Deepti Tiwari, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Shri Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer.
(HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)
Order on Board
15/09/2025
1. This criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401
of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
09.08.2012 passed by the learned 6 th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, C.G. in
Criminal Appeal No.93/2012 whereby the appellate Court partly allowed the appeal
while affirming the conviction of the applicant under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of
IPC., reduced the sentence to 3 months S.I. from 6 months S.I. under Section 338
IPC and similarly reduced the sentence to S.I. for 6 months in place of S.I. for two
years and also reduced the fine amount to Rs.1,000/- from Rs.2,000/- under Section
304-A of IPC while keeping in tact the sentence of till rising of the court with fine of
Rs.1,000/- awarded under Section 279 IPC and fine sentence of Rs.1,000/-
imposed under Section 338 IPC.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.01.2011 when P.W.1 Sajan Bai
along with companions Bharti and Meena went to Devkinandan Chowk for
decoration of light and when they were passing through the said Chowk, they were
dashed by the offending vehicle Swaraz Mazda bearing registration
No.C.G.10-A/8295, which was being driven by the applicant/driver in a rash and
negligent manner. On account of such dash, Meena suffered injures on her knee,
P.W.1 Sajan Bai also got injuries over her body whereas, Bharti Suryawanshi has
died. The injured persons were admitted in CIMS Hospital, thereafter a report was
lodged by one Bharat Lal Rathore P.W.4 at Police Station against the applicant.
Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of
C.J.M.Bilaspur. The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty.
4. Learned court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence,
vide its judgment dated 03.03.2012 passed in Criminal Case No.373/2011,
convicted the applicant under Section 279, 338 and 304-A of IPC and sentenced the
applicant til rising of the Court with fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 279 IPC, to
S.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 338 IPC and to S.I. for two
years with fine of Rs.2,000/- along with usual default sentence with a direction to run
the sentences concurrently. The appellate Court, vide its judgment dated
09.08.2012 upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence, as mentioned in para 1
of this order. Hence, this revision.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that she does not want
to challenge the conviction part of the applicant and confines her argument to the
sentence part only, which according to her is on higher side. She further argues
that the accident took place when the deceased and her other companions including
P.W.1 Sajan Bai were holding the decoration lights and were moving on road. She
further submits that the applicant remained in jail for 2 months 2 days, i.e., from
09.08.2012 to 11.10.2012 and he has no criminal antecedents and is facing lis since
2011, i.e., more than 13 years. She further submits that fine amount has already
been deposited. Therefore, it is prayed by counsel for the applicant that the jail
sentence awarded to applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by
him.
6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision and supported
the impugned judgment.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused
the record.
8. Considering the evidence led by the prosecution on record connecting the
applicant in crime in question and other evidence and material available on record,
this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the Court of JMFC Court as
well as by the Appellate Court, being based on the evidence available on record, is
a correct finding. Therefore, I hereby affirm the said finding of conviction of
applicant.
9. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and further considering the overall evidence on record, the fact that the
applicant remained in jail for a period of 2 months 2 days, he has no criminal
antecedents and is facing the lis from 2011 i.e. more than 13 years, I am of the view
that the 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, the fine amount with default sentence imposed by the
Court of JMFC as well as Appellate Court for the aforesaid offence shall remain
intact. The direction to run the sentences concurrently shall also remain intact.
10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of applicant
under the aforementioned Sections is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period
already undergone by him.
11. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds 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
