[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Dujram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 May, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

2026:CGHC:21704
ABHISHEK
NAFR
SHRIVAS

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
SHRIVAS
Date:
2026.05.11
18:46:09 +0530

CRR No. 928 of 2016

Dujram S/o Santosh Yadav Aged About 23 Years Caste-Rawat, R/o
Bichhibahra, Police Station Gurur, Tahsil Gurur, Civil And Revenue District
Balod, Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Gurur,
District Balod, Chhattisgarh.
... Non-applicant

For Applicant : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate.
For Non-applicant /State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board
08.05.2026

This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order

dated 26.08.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balod, District

Balod (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 53/2016, arising out of the judgment

and order dated 12.05.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Balod, in Criminal Case No. 1059/2014, whereby the

applicant was convicted under Section 304-A of the IPC and sentenced

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 02 years along with a fine of Rs.

500/-, with a further sentence of simple imprisonment for 15 days in

default of payment of fine. The applicant was also convicted under

Section 279 of the IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, with a

further sentence of simple imprisonment for 15 days in default of

payment of fine.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 02.07.2014, the complainant,

Narendra Kumar, along with his wife Tameshwari and son Abhishek

Sinha, had come to the house of his brother, Jayprakash Sinha, situated

in Village Mokha, for preparation of the income and caste certificate of

Abhishek. On 04.07.2014, at about 5:00 PM, the complainant's son,

Abhishek, was going towards Dokla Dargahan while riding a bicycle. At

that time, the tractor driver, Dujram, drove the tractor in a rash and

negligent manner, at a high speed, and hit Abhishek Sinha from the front,

thereby causing an accident. As a result of the accident, Abhishek

sustained injuries on his head and was admitted to Gurur Hospital for

treatment, where the doctor declared him dead. The incident was

witnessed by Rajesh, Chhannu Ram, and Dani Ram. The complainant

lodged a report regarding the incident at the concerned police station.

Upon finding sufficient evidence against the accused, he was arrested.

Since the offence was bailable in nature, he was released on bail upon

furnishing a bail bond. Thereafter, upon completion of the investigation,

the charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court.

3. After completing the trial, the trial Court passed the impugned judgment

and order on 12.05.2016, convicting the applicant under Section 304-A

of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 02 years

along with a fine of Rs. 500/-, with a further sentence of simple

imprisonment for 15 days in default of payment of fine. The applicant was

also convicted under Section 279 of the IPC and sentenced to pay a fine

of Rs. 500/-, with a further sentence of simple imprisonment for 15 days

in default of payment of fine.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment dated 12.05.2016, the revisionist

preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge Balod, District

Balod (C.G.), whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal

vide order dated 26.08.2016 in criminal appeal No. 53/2016.

5. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant/revisionist does not

challenge his conviction, learned counsel only emphasized that sentence

may be modified suitably by enhancing the fine amount, as the applicant

has already undergone near about 01 month and 7 days of jail sentence.

Therefore, the sentence already undergone by him may be suffice to

meet the ends of justice by enhancing the fine amount, which may not

amount to enhancement of sentence. He relied upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaydev Shrichand Danani v.

State of Gujarat reported in 1993 Supp (1) SCC 616.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel, appearing for the non-applicant/State

would strongly support the impugned judgment and submits that there is

no need to interfere with the sentence.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments of

both the Courts and records with utmost circumspection.

8. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the trial Court after

considering the materials available on record and evidence of the

prosecution witnesses, has convicted the applicant for offences

punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for 02 years along with a fine of Rs. 500/-, with a

further sentence of simple imprisonment for 15 days in default of

payment of fine and in Section 279 of the IPC and sentenced to pay a

fine of Rs. 500/-, with a further sentence of simple imprisonment for 15

days in default of payment of fine. In an appeal preferred by the

applicant/revisionist before the appellate Court, whereby the learned

appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide order dated 26.08.2016 in

criminal appeal No.53/16. Considering the materials available on record

and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the

learned appellate Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity by

affirming the order passed by the learned trial Court.

9. Now considering the question of sentence as the criminal trial

commenced on 03.12.2014 which continued till 12.05.2016, and though

the appeal also continued near about 03 months and this revision petition

has been pending since 27.09.2016 and as such from the date of

commencement of trial, more than 11 years have been elapsed,

considering the age of the applicant at present and further considering

that the applicant has already undergone near about 1 month and 7 days

of jail sentence and also considering the judgment relied upon by the

learned counsel for the applicant/revisionist i.e. Jaydev Shrichand

Danani (supra), there would be no useful purpose to again send the

applicant in jail as he has already suffered undergone sentence and also

agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice.

So this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the sentence as RI for 02

years under Section 304-A of the IPC to the period already undergone by

the applicant i.e. near about 01 month and 7 days, however fine amount

is enhanced from Rs. 500/- to 30,000/- and the same shall not amount to

enhancement of sentence, in addition to what he has earlier been

deposited before the concerned trial Court. Enhanced fine amount shall

be deposited by the applicant within a period of three months from today

before the concerned trial Court, failing which he shall undergo the

sentence as has been ordered by the trial Court and affirmed by the

learned appellate Court, Balod (C.G.). Ordered accordingly.

10. The amount of fine so deposited by the applicant before the concerned

trial Court shall, in turn, be transmitted by the trial Court to the

complainant / father of the deceased (PW-4, namely, Narendra Kumar,

S/o late Bhagwani Ram Sinha).

11. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated

hereinabove.

12. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial

court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.

                    -                                      Sd/-
                                                      (Ramesh Sinha)
                                                       Chief Justice


Abhishek