[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Roshan Kumar Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 February, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:10284
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
PRAKASH
PRAKASH
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.02.27
15:49:39
+0530
Criminal Revision No. 1138 of 2016
Roshan Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Bhola Prasad Gupta, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o Village Garhbira, Police Station Lundra, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Lundra, District Sarguja,
Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. C.Jayant K. Rao, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Ram Narayan Sahu, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Order on Board
27/02/2026
1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal
Procedure against the impugned judgment dated 29.11.2016 passed
by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja,
(C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.73/2015 whereby the learned Appellate
Court has affirmed the order of conviction and sentence dated
04.12.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur,
District Surguja (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.4956/2012, convicting the
applicant/accused under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860
and sentencing him to undergo S.I. for six months and fine of Rs.500/-,
in default of payment of fine, additional S.I. for 15 days.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, complainant Surfaraz Ali
lodged an FIR stating that on 09.10.2012 at about 06:30 PM, when he
and his wife Smt. Sabana Khatun (deceased hereinafter) were going to
fetch water from the hand pump situated near Middle School, at that
time, the accused/applicant who was riding his motorcycle bearing
registration number CG-15-CC-9340, in a rash and negligent manner,
dashed the deceased and caused the accident, as a result of which
Sabana received grievous injuries, and during course of her treatment,
she died. As such, the case was registered against the
applicant/accused. During the course of investigation, statements of the
witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the
Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, (CG) against the
applicant, who abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty.
4. Learned Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in
paragraph 1 of this judgment. The said judgment was challenged by
the applicant in Criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide
judgment dated 29.11.2016 dismissed the same. Hence, this revision.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not
want to challenge the conviction of the applicant and confines his
argument on the sentence part only, which, according to him, is on
higher side. He further submits that the applicant was carrying bundle
of clothes while riding the motorcycle and the deceased was dashed by
the said bundle of clothes, and in that event, the alleged accident
occurred. He further submits that the applicant has remained in jail for
15 days i.e. from 29.11.2016 to 14.12.2016, he is facing the lis since
October, 2012 i.e. for more than 13 years, he has no criminal
antecedents and the fine amount has already been deposited before
the concerned trial Court. He further submits that during the trial, the
applicant was on bail and he has not misused the liberty granted to
him. On these premises, he urged that 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 passed by the learned JMFC and Appellate Court.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and
perused the record.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, statements of the
complainant Surfaraz Ali (PW-1), Seraj Ali (PW-2), Azam Khan (PW-5)
and further considering 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.
9. As regards the sentence part of the applicant, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and further considering the manner in which
the alleged accident took place, the fact that applicant has remained in
jail for 15 days, he is facing the lis since 2012 i.e. for more than 13
years, he has no criminal antecedents, and that the fine amount has
already been deposited, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose would
be served to send the applicant back to jail again, and 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.
10. 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. The fine sentence and default
sentence is hereby affirmed.
11. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond
shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of
the provision contained under Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal)
JUDGE
Prakash
