Partly allowed

Sanjay Singh v. State of C.G.

Chhattisgarh HC18 Jul 2018CRA/434/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence under IPC 304-A/304 Part-II for rash and negligent driving causing death. The High Court affirmed the conviction and fine but reduced the jail term to the period already undergone as ends of justice demanded.

What did the court decide?

Conviction affirmed; jail sentence reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant; fine affirmed; bail bond continued for six months.

Sanjay Singh Vs State of C.G. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Criminal Appeal No. 434 of 2002

¶5

Sanjay Singh S/o Bol Singh @ Bhola Singh R/o Katainar P.S. Banki Mongra, Tah. Katghora Distt. Korba (C.G.).

¶6

-- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Appellant : Mr. Ravish Verma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, PL

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

¶12

Judgment on Board

¶13

18/07/2018

¶14

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 27/03/2002 passed by the II^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Korba in S.T. No. 52/1996, convicting the appellant under Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for 2 years with fine of Rs. 1000/with default stipulation.

¶15

As per prosecution story, the appellant was the driver of the truck bearing registration No. MKJ-8276. It was alleged that on 17/08/1995, when deceased- D.P. Malhotra was returning from BALCO on his scooter, near Setutala turning, the appellant, by rashly and negligently reversing the truck, dashed the deceased who sustained serious injuries. The deceased was later on hospitalized, where he was declared dead. FIR was registered. After investigation, a charge-

¶16

¶17

sheet under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC was filed. Charges under Section 304 Part-II was framed by the trial Court. After trial, the trial Court vide judgment dated 27/03/2002 has acquitted the accused/appellant from the charge under Section 304-II of the IPC and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.

¶18

Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument to the sentence part only. It is further submitted that out of sentence of two years, the applicant has undergone the jail sentence from 27/03/2002 to 03/05/2002. The matter is of the year 1996 and the appellant is facing this lis since 22 years. There is no criminal antecedents against him. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶19

Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment and submits that the sentence awarded by the trial Court is just and proper and requires no interference.

¶20

I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely.

¶21

Considering the above facts and circumstances, particularly considering that out of total jail sentence of two years, the applicant has undergone the jail sentence from 27/03/2002 to 03/05/2002 and they are facing this lis since 1996, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the appellant, the jail sentenced awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶22

¶23

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction imposed upon the appellant is affirmed and the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is also affirmed.

¶24

It is reported that the appellant/accused is on bail. His bail bond is not discharged at this stage and the same shall remain operative for a further period of 6 months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

¶25

Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.

¶26

Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

¶27

Rahul

Sanjay Singh v. State of C.G.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay 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

Smt. Lalima Kujur Vs Dilip Kujur

Dev Kumar Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikki Kumar Dhobi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prakash Narayan Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh

Moti Ram and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Malikram Aadil Vs Chhedilal Kashyap