Dismissed

Shankar Lal v. State of C.G.

Chhattisgarh HC7 Sept 2012CRR/208/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh considered a Criminal Revision challenging a conviction under Sections 337 and 304A of the IPC for rash driving causing death. The court dismissed the revision, upholding the conviction and sentence based on witness evidence and referencing a Supreme Court dictum on sentencing.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision was dismissed; the applicant must surrender to the trial court to serve the remaining sentence.

Shankar Lal Vs State of C.G. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

iN_THj;,HIGti_CajKZ,OF,CHHATUSG.^H,ATBILASffi^^

CR .R. N0. ^^

OF 2002.

APPLlC^T ACCUSED

^:y^ yy^~"^y'' -v' ^-••L^'^^yy. ^>" ...-'' ..^ ^^ ^ ^ V E R S U S ., ^ ^•' ..'*

¶7

Shankar Lal S/o Masat Ram Sidar, aged about 32 years, ft/o Village- Ramkhodhara^ Police Station Pusour, Tahsii & District Raigarh, (C.G.).

¶8

NON-APPLICANT t State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The District Magistrate, Raigarh,(C.G.).

¶9

jvifcMCL^OF CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTiQN_,40j__a^.JHE CODE OF CRIMINAL OCE£URE, 1973.

Cr.R.No.208/2002

Pag@lof2

HIGH ©OURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BSLASPUR

¶14

Criminal Revision No. 208 of 2002

APPUCANT

Shankar Lai

Verws

Non-applicant

State of OhhatUsgarh

(Criminai Revision under Section ^7 read with Section 4©1ofth®GrJ3.C.) SB: Hon'bie Mr. T.P. Sharma, J. » « i

¶21

Mr.D.N.Prajapati, counsel forthe applicant. Miss Sangeeta MIshra, Panei Lawyer forthe non-^ppllcant/State.

¶22

ORDER

¶23

(Passed on 7th September, 2012)

¶24

By this revision pet'rtion, the applioant has diallenged legality & propriety of the judgment dated 16.4.2002 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, in Criminai Appeal No.99/95, whereby the appeSSate Court has modifying the judgment <dated 26.5.1995 passed by the Judjciai Magistrate First Class, Raigarh, in Criminal Case No.148»©2.By modifying the aforesaid jucigment the* appeSiate Court has ftnally affirmed the convtotion of the applicant under Sections 337 and 304A of the IPC and sentenced hlm to undergo R.l. for three months & flne of Rs.500/-. in ciefault of payment

¶25

^ of fine to further undergo R.l. for one mon i and R.l. for six months & fihe of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fme to further undergo R.l. for two months.

¶26

i have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment impugned. judgment of the trial Court and records of the Courts below.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appiicant vehementty submits that the prosecution has utteriy failed to prove rash and negligent drivSng ofttie applicant and causing death of Kanhaiya.

¶28

On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the revision.

Gr.R.No.208/2002

Pa^lofl

^^8»

^MH^

As per evidence of iVladan Lal (PW-1), Sitaram (PW-2), Hetram (RA/-3), Dheduram (PW-4). Raghunandan (PW-5), Dev Singh (PW-6) and Baran (PW-7), the applicant was driving the vehicie rashly, suddeniy Sight was off, they advised to stop the vehicie but instead of stopping the vehicte he raised the speed and dashed th@4ree,as a l;l. "':.'^.^^ resuit of such accident Kanhaiya received Snjures and tlied. These evidences are sufTicient to prove the fact that th@ appiieant was drNng the vehicie rashly and negligently and caused death of one porson and simpie injuries to others. Therefore, by convlcting tie appiicantunder Sections 337 and 304A of the iPG both the Courts below have not committed any iilegaSity.

¶38

As regards the question of sentence, by the afpresatd acGi<ient the applicant has caused death of one person, therefore, in the llght of dictum ofthe Supreme Court tn the matter of State of Kamataka v. Sharanappa Basanagouda Aregoudar1,1 do noffind any itleg^t^ in sentencing the appiicant R.l. for three months and R.S. for six m@nths.

¶39

Consequently, the revision is iiable to be dismissed s»id Is hereby dismissed. The appticant is on bail, he shail surrender irnmediately before the trial Court for serving remaining sentenc®.The trial Court shali take immediate appropriate steps for his attendance for serving remaining sentence.

Sd/T.P. Sharma Judge

1(2002) 3 SCC 736

Shankar Lal v. State of C.G.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Lal 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish Singh Chandel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shyam Bihari Gupta Vs the State of C.G

M.P.State Ware Housing Corp. and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Khor Bahra Vs State of C.G.

Panch Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sewa Ram Vs State of C.G.