Partly allowed

Ashish Manikar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Feb 2019CRR/318/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court of Chhattisgarh modified the sentence imposed on an applicant convicted of rash and negligent driving causing death. The Court held that as the incident occurred in 2007 and the applicant had already undergone jail time, his sentence should be reduced to the period served.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant.

Ashish Manikar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

Criminal Revision No. 318 of 2010

¶4

Ashish Manikar S/o. Uttam Manikar, Aged about 19 years, R/o. Tarbahar, FCI Road, House of Shiv Kumar Patel, Police Station Tyarbahar, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶5

---- Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶8

---- Respondent –----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Applicant : Ms. Sareena Khan, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. I. Lakra, Dy. Govt. Advocate

¶9

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vimla Singh Kapoor

¶10

01.02.2019

¶11

This revision is directed against the judgment dated 08.07.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge Bilaspur, in Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2010, modifying the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No. 15/2008, convicting and sentencing the accused/applicant under Sections 3/181 and 146/196 of the Motor Vehicles Act and under Sections 337,337 304-A IPC sentencing him to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- to each u/s 3/181, 146/196 of the Motor Vehicle Act, to pay fine of Rs. 500/- to each u/s 337 IPC and to undergo simple

¶12

¶13

imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- u/s. 304-A IPC with default stipulation.

¶14

2 . Facts of the case, in short, are that FIR (Ex.P-2) was lodged by the complainant (PW-1) in Police Station Masturi, wherein it is alleged that on the date of incident i.e. on 12.10.2007 the applicant was driving tanker bearing registration No. CG 10 Z B- 1013 with rash and negligence manner and dashed the boundary wall and rammed into the school premises by braking the boundary, as a result of which Jokesh died on the spot, Arti and Anjani the other students were received injuries on their body and they were sent for medical treatment. After registration of offence and completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed against the accused/applicant.

¶15

3 . Learned Magistrate having perused the material before it convicted the accused/applicant under Sections 3/181 and 146/196 of the Motor Vehicles Act and under Sections 337,337 304-A IPC. In appeal the sentences of the above mentioned conviction has been modified. Hence, this revision.

¶16

4 . Conviction is not being pressed on merit and the sole prayer made by the counsel for the applicant is confined to reduction of sentence imposed on the accused/applicant to the period already undergone on account of the fact that the case is quite old and the accused/applicant has already remained in jail for some time.

¶17

¶18

5 . State counsel however, supports the findings recorded by the both the Courts below.

¶19

6 . Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment impugned and the evidence available on record carefully.

¶20

7 . From the statement of the (PW-2) and (PW-3), it is unflinchingly proved that the applicant while driving the tanker bearing registration No. CG 10 Z B-1013 with rash and negligence manner and dashed the boundary wall and rammed into the school premises by braking the boundary, as a result of which Jokesh died on the spot. PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7 and Arti (PW-8) the eye-witness to the incident supported the case of the prosecution. It is also established from the statements of those witnesses that on account of the rash and negligent act of the accused/applicant Jokesh (deceased) died on the spot. Therefore, the findings of conviction recorded by both the Courts below appear to be fully justified. It is hereby maintained.

¶21

8 . As regards sentence, keeping in view the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 2007, that the accused/applicant has already remained in jail for a period of 7 days and further that by now he must be leading a well settled life saddled with innumerable responsibilities, this Court thinks it proper to reduce the sentence imposed on him to the period already undergone.

¶22

¶23

9 . With the above, the revision stands allowed in part.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

(Vimla Singh Kapoor)

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

Santosh

Ashish Manikar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Manikar 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

Girija Shanker Pandey and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Banas Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Leela Shankar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Habib Khan Vs Dr. Lakhan Singh

Chetan Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tilak Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh