Dismissed

Shamsher Singh v. State of C.G.

Chhattisgarh HC5 Sept 2012CRR/121/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition challenged the High Court affirmed conviction and sentence regarding a vehicular accident. The High Court found no illegality in the trial court's decision to convict the applicant under Section 304A of the IPC, dismissing the revision.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed; the applicant was directed to surrender immediately to serve the remaining sentence imposed by the Court below.

Shamsher Singh Vs State of C.G. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT 0‘3‘ JUDICA‘I‘URE AT BILASPUR (C.G.)

¶3

cr.Revision No. f/§f Of 2002

¶4

( Manorandum of Cr.Revision U/s 397/401 of Cr. P.C. )

¶5

_PETI^TIONER IN JAIL

¶6

gaamsher Singh s/o Dashrath Yadav, aged 24 years, resident of Baramkel a, Tahsil ' Sarangarh, District Raigarh.

¶7

‘

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Guhattisgarh, Through the District Magistrate Raigarh (VIPCG) .

¶10

MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER sEc'rlm 397/401 OF Cr.P.c«.

¶11

¶12

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶13

Criminal Revision No.121 of 2002

¶14

PETITIONER: Shamsher Singh (In^Jail)

¶15

Versus

¶16

RESPONDENT: The State of Chhattisgarh

¶17

{Criminal^{revisionunderSection397/401ofCr.P.C.}}

¶18

Present:

¶19

Mr. B.D. Guru with Mr. Varunehdra Mishra, counsel for the applicant.

¶20

Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Panel Lawyer for the State.

¶21

“if ‘ Sjnqle Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J

ORDER

(5-9—2012)

By this revision, the applicant has chailenged‘ legality and propriety of the" judgment^{dated26-2-2002} passed by'the 15‘ Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Criminal Appeal No.179/2000, modifying the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1-7-2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarangarh in Criminal Case No.5/99, whereby and whereunder the trial court after holding the applicant guilty for causing death of Priyanka by rash & negiigent driving of jeep, convicted the applicant under Sections 279 & 304A of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for three months on both counts which has been modified by the appellate Court, and the applicant has been acquitted of the charge under Section 279 of the IPC.

¶26

i have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments impugned and records of both the Courts below.

¶27

. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not driven the vehicle rashly & negligently and he was not responsible for the death of Priyanka. The prosecution has failed to prove aforesaid facts, therefore, conviction & sentence of the applicant under Section 304A of the IPC are not sustainable under the law.

¶28

. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the revision and submits that evidences ofLalchand (PW-1) & Akshay (PW-2) in whose cycle the deceased was sitting on back are sufficient to prove the fact that the

¶29

Page 2 of 2

¶30

Cr.R.No.121/2002

¶31

applicant was driving the vehicie rashly & negligently and thereby has caused the death^ofPriyanka.

¶32

. As per evidences^ofLalchand (PW-1)^&Akshay (PW—2),^{whowerepresent} on^:the spot, the^{applicantwasdrivingthe} jeep, light of the jeep^washigh and they were driving the cycle safely, but the applicant has crushed Priyanka (since^{deceased)whowassittingonbackofthecycledrivenby} Akshay (PW-2). As per evidences^ofthe prosecution^{witnesses,theinjured} was driving the^cycleandthe jeep^{camefromfrontside.} It was the duty^of the jeep driver^todrivethe jeep^safely Nothing has^{beenshownthatthe} deceased or^other persons^{werenegligent} In movrng or drivmg^thecycle EVIdences of^{aforesaidWitnessesare} suffICIent to prove^{thefactthatthe} apphcant has not taken proper precaution at the time of drlvmg the jeep which resulted in^{deathofPriyankai.e.achildagedabout9years.}

¶33

. After appreciating^the evidence available on record, the trial Court has convicted the applicant under Section 304A of^the IPC which has been“ affirmed by the^{appellateCourt.} The trial Court^{hasalreadytaken} liberal View in sentencing^{theapplicantthattootoundergoRIfor3} months. i do not find any^{illegalityinconvictingorsentencingtheapplicantunderSection} 304A of the IPC requiring any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

¶34

Soma

¶35

. Consequently, the revision is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. The applicant^isonbail. He shall surrender^{immediatelybefore} the trial Court^{toserveremainingsentenceimposeduponbyhjmandthe} trial Court shall^{alsoimmediatelytakeappropriatestepsforhisattendance} 7* ’gdL

¶36

for servmg remaining^sentence. #f ,,.,.,;.,.,. , V

¶37

T.P.^Sharma Judge # I/

¶38

;na

Shamsher Singh v. State of C.G.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamsher Singh v. State of C.G.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Oriental Insurance Comp.Ltd. Vs Smt.Ratan Bai and Others

Sah Deo and Ors. Vs State

Ram Pati Ram and Anr. Vs State

Dubey Prasad Vs State of C.G.

Ran Sai Vs State of C.G.

Ezra Jacob Vs Anil Gupat and Anr.