Partly allowed

Jaiprakash Sahu @ Nanki Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 Sept 2022CRR/473/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Revision, the High Court of Chhattisgarh affirmed the conviction of the applicant for offences under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A of the IPC relative to a fatal road accident. The Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the applicant but enhanced the fines payable to the deceased's parents.

What did the court decide?

Conviction affirmed; sentence reduced to time served; fine enhanced to Rs. 5,000 for death and Rs. 1,000 for other offences.

Jaiprakash Sahu @ Nanki Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

Page 1 of 6

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRR No. 473 of 2013

¶5

Jaiprakash Sahu @ Nanki Sahu, S/o Kaliram Sahu, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Chandrapur Road Baramkela, P.S. and Tahsil Baramkela, Raigarh Ravenue and Civil District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh, S/o Through - District Magistrate, Raigarh District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ---- Non-Applicant

¶8

For Applicant : Shri Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Shri Lalit Jangde, Deputy Government Advocate

¶9

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶10

09.09.2022

¶11

1. This Criminal Revision is filed against the judgment dated 23.07.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal Case No. 01/2013 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.), whereby learned Appellate Court has partly allowed the appeal and modified the sentence for the offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC from 6 months S.I. to 3 months S.I.; for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC from 3 months SI to 1 month SI. However, learned Appellate Court has maintained the fine amount for offence punishable under Sections 279 & 337 of IPC, whereas enhanced the fine amount from Rs. 500 to 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC.

¶12

1. As per the prosecution story, on 04.01.2003 at about 8 am the complainant Ramnarayan Nayak was going for selling paddy

¶13

Page 2 of 6

¶14

from Nawapali to Baramkela Society in his tractor-trolley bearing registration No. MP-26-EL-0940 & trolley No. MP-55-0063. In the said tractor, Arjun Nishad was sitting in tractor’s mudguard whereas Nehru Manikpuri, Kanhaiya Sidar, his son Pintu Sidar (4 years old) and Gharau Sidar were sitting in trolley. When the tractor reached near Nawapara Road, the offending truck bearing Registration No. MIT No.9766 arriving from Baramkela, driven by the present applicant rashly and negligently dashed the tractor from its right side and dragged the trolley for some distance. As a result of powerful jerk, Arjun and Nehru sustained injuries and Pintu Sidar, tumbled down on the floor who died on the spot. The present applicant was identified by the injured person Ramnarayan Nayak who was driving the tractor and matter was reported to the Police on same day whereupon FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of IPC against driver of the offending truck.

¶15

1. The Police, after investigation filed charge-sheet for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of IPC. Learned trial Court framed charges against the applicant, who abjured the charges and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents to prove the guilt of the present applicant.

¶16

1. Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 02.02.2013 in Criminal Case No. 297/2003 convicted and sentenced the present applicant as mentioned in para-1 of this order.

¶17

1. The present applicant preferred an appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.02.2003 recorded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, District- Raigarh and the

¶18

Page 3 of 6

¶19

said appeal was partly allowed. The learned lower Appellate Court while affirming the conviction of the present applicant reduced the sentence as mentioned in the para No.1.

¶20

1. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the deceased and other two persons were travelling in the trolley which was loaded with the paddy, therefore, it can not be held that applicant is responsible for the death of the deceased Pintu Sidar. He further submits that there was head on collision between the truck and tractor and the driver of the tractor was also liable for the accident, but he has not being arrayed as accused. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the accident took place on 04.01.2003 and at the relevant time the applicant was aged about 26 years, there is no minimum sentence prescribed under Section 304-A of IPC, the applicant has remained in custody for 8 days and after long 19 years no purpose would be served to send the applicant again behind the bars. He prays to allow this Criminal Revision.

¶21

1. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the arguments advances by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the tractor was being driven by its driver on its side and the present applicant by driving the truck rashly and negligently caused the accident. The witnesses have categorically deposed against him and there is no scope for the interference as the Courts below have concurrently held the applicant’s guilt for the offences charged against him. He further submits that learned lower Appellate Court has already reduced the sentence after taking lenient view. He prays for dismissal of the instant Criminal Revision.

¶22

Page 4 of 6

¶23

1. I have considered the submissions made by the respective parties and perused the records. Vide Ex.P/1 FIR was lodged by Ramnarayan Nayak (PW/2) who is resident of same village, on 04.01.2003, being the eye witness to the incident and Merg intimation Ex.P/2 was also given by him regarding death of Pintu Sidar. PW/1 Nehru Manikpuri in his evidence stated that in the tractor trolley he alongwith Kanhaiya, his wife and son were travelling and the tractor was being driven by Ramnarayan Nayak (PW/2). In between Baramkela and Jhanakpur the offending truck dashed the tractor, however, he does not know who was driving the truck. PW/2 Ramnarayan Nayak who was driving the tractor has stated that near Shishu Mandir Baramkela, the truck which was being driven by the present applicant, dashed on right side of the tractor and on account of sudden jerk Nehru Manikpuri, Arjun and deceased Pintu Sidar fell down on the road and sustaining injuries, whereas, Pintu Sidar died on the spot. PW/3 Arjun Lal is injured witness who has supported the case of the prosecution. PW/4 Ghurau is an eye witness, who was travelling on tractor. PW/6 Kanhaiya Lal is father of the deceased travelling in the trolley of the tractor and he has supported the case of the prosecution. PW/7 Belasini who is mother of the deceased and she was also travelling in the tractor trolley. PW/11 Chintamani Malakar is Assistant Sub Inspector and Investigating Officer who registered FIR, recorded statements of the witnesses, seized vehicle and filed the chargesheet.

¶24

1. From the evidence of the witnesses and exhibited documents, it is established that the present applicant by driving vehicle rashly

¶25

Page 5 of 6

¶26

and negligently dashed the tractor and trolley & trolley as a result of which some person fell down from the tractor-trolley and sustained injuries in which Pintu Sidar has died. Therefore, the learned Courts below have not committed any illegality in convicting the present applicant for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337, 304-A of IPC, therefore, the conviction of the applicant for the above offences is affirmed.

¶27

10) Now considering the question of factum of punishment.

¶28

11) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the date of incident applicant was aged about 26 years and at present he is aged about 45 years. He remained in custody for 8 days and he has suffered a lot from 2003 to 2020. He further submits that under Section 304-A of IPC there is no minimum sentence has been prescribed. Considering the fact that there was head on collision between the truck and tractor being driven by the present applicant, there is no evidence to the effect that applicant is solely responsible for the accident. Also the fact that injured persons were travelling in trolley of the tractor which is not a suitable mode of conveyance as per Motor Vehicle Act. The injured persons including mother and father of the deceased and the deceased himself, all were travelling in the trolley and due to jerk they fell down from it. Considering these facts I am inclined to reduce the sentence from 3 months to the period already undergone by the applicant by enhancing the fine amount under Section 279 of IPC from Rs. 500 to 1,000/-; Section 337 of IPC from Rs.500 to 1,000/and Section 304-A of IPC from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount the applicant has to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The amount which has

¶29

Page 6 of 6

¶30

been deposited by the applicant will be adjusted against the enhanced fine amount. The applicant is directed to deposit the enhanced fine amount within a period of two months.

¶31

12)The amount enhanced shall be payable to the parents of the deceased, according to the Section 357 of CrPC.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶34

Nadim

Jaiprakash Sahu @ Nanki Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaiprakash Sahu @ Nanki Sahu 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

Chandrahas Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Hirendra Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Balkrishna Kashyap Vs Smt. Lilavati

Shailendra Kumar @ Bablu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hemant Kumar Kurrey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Dipika Goyal Vs Amit Kumar Agrawal