Partly allowed

Dhruw Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 Nov 2016CRR/483/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court of Chhattisgarh affirmed the applicant's conviction for an offence under IPC Section 304(A) but reduced the jail term to match the time served and enhanced the fine from Rs. 200 to Rs. 2,000, granting one month to pay.

What did the court decide?

Conviction affirmed; jail sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine enhanced to Rs. 2,000 with one month to pay.

Dhruw Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 483 of 2004

¶3

APPLICANT

¶4

: Dhruw Singh

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

RESPONDENT

¶7

: State of Chhattisgarh

¶8

POST FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT ON

¶9

ON § November, 2016

¶10

SdlAnil Kumar Shukla i Judge ii‘i EL112016 i '1 i

¶11

NAF R

¶12

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 483 of 2004 Judgment reserved on: 27.10.2016 Judgment delivered on:g3_.1 1 .2016

¶13

Dhruw Singh, Aged about 38 years, S/o. Shri Hira Singh, OccupationDriver Resident of Atarmudha, Raigarh, Police Station Chakradharnagar, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶14

---- Applicant

¶15

Versus

¶16

State of Chhattisgarh through the Police Station Chakradharnagar, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶17

---- Respondent

¶18

For Applicant :- Mr. Roop Naik, Advocate For Respondent :- Mr. Shri Sanjeev Pandey, G. A

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Shukla

¶20

C A V Judgment

¶21

This revision is directed against the judgment dated 22.09.2004 passed^by Sessions Judge Raigarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 68/2004 . affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.03.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) in Criminal Case No'. 99/2002 whereby learned Judicial Magistrate after holding the applicant guilty for commission of i offence punishable under section 304 (A) of IPC sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs. ZOO/in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

¶22

Being aggrieved by the judgments, the applicant has filed the / /’ l \ present^{Criminalrevi s'} 2, . l b., _

¶23

The prosecution case, in short, is that on 01.05.2001, one Deepak Kumar^was driving the Jeep of Rajendra^Agrawal bearing registration^{No.26-E-9958andtaking} passenge‘s^{fromKodataraito} viliage Ruchida for attending marriage ceremony. In the Jeep, Shyam, Padum^and8to10 persons^weresitting. When they^reached near Jagdish^{RiceMili,KodatarioneStatebusbearingregistrationNo.} MP 26 C 5602^{whichwasbeingdrivenbythepresentapplicantrashly} and negligentiy,^{dashedtheJeepfromoppositesideresultingintoan} accident, in which one person^{namelyShyamlaldiedonthespot.First} information^Reportwas given^{byRajendraAgrawal,owneroftheJeep} vide Ex.P/1.

¶24

¶25

Being aggrieved by the judgment^and order of sentence the applicant filed criminal appeal bearing No. 68/2004 before the Sessions Judge, Raigarh, The appellate Court after hearing the parties^{dismissedtheappealfiledbytheapplicanton22.09.2004.} 5. Shri Roop^{Naik,learnedcounselfortheapplicantarguedthatthe} finding recorded^{onthebasisofevidenceadducedbytheprosecution} . is not in accordance^with law. He^{furtherargued} that the Appellate Court has not considered the statements of the independent witnesses namely^DeepakKumar (PW—2), Qmprakash^Yadav(PW-3), Gopal Prasad (PW-6) and Sajau Kumar (PW-9), who have not suppdrted^thecaseofthe prosecution.^{Hefurtherarguedthatthecase} is pending^nearabout12 years^{andtheapplicanthasremained-injail} almost for^{aweek,therefore,theapplicantcannotbesentbacktojail} again. He^{furthersubmitsthathe} is not pressing^{theconviction} part imposed upon^the applicant and^would confine his argument^tothe sentence part^{only.Hefurthersubmitsthatsentenceoffineamount} awarded by the learned trial Court may be enha ced and the jail

r; i , ,K , l

mtumwwmmm

sentence awarded t9 the applicant may be reduced to the period ‘ e already undergone by him. 6. On theother hand, Shri Sanjeev Pandey, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent, supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge and pleaded for no interference by this Court. 7. ln the instant case, the incident took place on 01.05.2001. The applicant remained in custody for about one week. The applicant was on bail during trial and he is also on ball during pendency of this appeal. The applicant thus, has faced the prosecution for near about 15 years. ln view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, l do not feel it appropriate to send the applicant back to jail.

¶32

l am of the view that the ends of justice would meet if the jail sentence awarded to the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone by him and the fine amount of Rs.200/— may be enhanced to Rs. 2,000/— for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of the IPC.

¶33

santosh

¶34

9, In the result, the revision is partly allowed. Conviction of the applicant under Section 304(A) is affirmed. However, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone by him and fine amount is enhanced from Rs.200/— to Rs.2,000/— for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of the IPC. The applicant is granted 1 month time to deposit the fine amount, failing which,^he shall be liable to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. lf any amount hasalready been deposited towards fine, the same shall be adjusted towards the amount of fine imposed/enhanced by this Court ‘ today. i a a‘ r¥.‘s , Sd,_ Anil Kumar Shukla l r j. Judge K_ l r .

¶35

WW}W. ~ _’ n a cwuaamVWaW‘ saw.

¶36

saw. *

¶37

J ’w—d

Dhruw Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhruw Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Purshottam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohar Sai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Keshav Netam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prabhakar Reddy Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Johru Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nanhu Ram Kalar and Others Vs State