Partly allowed

Hinchharam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Aug 2022CRR/697/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal appeal, High Court affirmed conviction of accused for rash and negligent driving causing death and injury. However, allowing revision, it reduced sentence to one already undergone due to long lapse of time and settlement of family life, citing rehabilitation principles.

What did the court decide?

Sentence imposed on the accused/applicant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

Hinchharam Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 697 of 2010

¶3

Order reserved on 14.6.2022

¶4

Order pronounced on 5.8.2022

¶5

Hinchharam S/o Kanwal Singh, aged about 32 years, Occupation – Driver, R/o Village Rawa, District Dhamtari, CG

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Kanker, District Kanker, CG --- Respondent

¶9

For applicant - Shri D.N. Prajapati, Advocate

¶10

For respondent/State - Shri Himanshu Kumar Sharma, PL

¶11

CAV Order

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶13

This revision under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.PC has been preferred against the judgment impugned dated 13.12.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, North Bastar, Kanker in Criminal Appeal No. 38/2008 whereby the judgment dated 20.12.2007 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanker in Criminal Case No. 191/2007 convicting the applicant under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for one year thrice for causing the death of three persons, and RI for one month for causing injury to some persons, has been affirmed.

¶14

Facts of the case in brief are that on 14.2.2002 the applicant herein while driving the tractor bearing registration

¶15

No. CG-05/4396 in a rash and negligent manner hit the jeep bearing registration No. MP-25-B/0656 as a result of which five occupants thereof suffered injuries. Smt. Dipika is said to have died on the spot itself. Subsequently, two women namely Anuradha Bai and Helan Bai also met with tragic death. On matter being reported to the police, the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC were registered against the applicant. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed for the aforesaid offences followed by charge being framed.

¶16

Learned Magistrate by order dated 20.12.2007 convicted and the sentenced the present applicant as mentioned above. On appeal being preferred by the present applicant, his conviction and sentence came to be affirmed by the judgment impugned dated 13.12.2010. Hence this revision.

¶17

Counsel for the applicant submits that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are not in conformity with the evidence collected by the prosecution and therefore, the judgment impugned is liable to be set aside. He further submits that both the Courts below have committed an error in ignoring the fact that the driver of the ill-fated jeep himself was at fault and not the present applicant who was driving the tractor which is said to have dashed against the jeep in which the deceased and injured persons were the occupants.

¶18

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that the judgment impugned being based on just and proper

¶19

appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses is not liable to be interfered with in this revision.

¶20

From the perusal of overall evidence in particular that of Sunil Kumar (PW-1), Budhram (PW-2), Anita (PW-5) it is apparent that the appellant was driving the tractor at excessively high speed and though on seeing the tractor being driven rashly, the driver of the ill-fated jeep had controlled his vehicle and taken it to the side of the road yet the tractor driver (the appellant) did not have control over his vehicle and eventually it dashed the jeep in which number of people were sitting as passengers. The said accident claimed three lives and left some injured. Thus the evidence clearly suggests that the accident had occurred only on account of rash and negligent driving of the accused/applicant and being so, his conviction under Section 304-A and 337 IPC is fully justified and do not require any interference in this revision.

¶21

As regards sentence, while dealing with the said question in the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1977 SC 1926 it has been observed by the Apex Court as under:

¶22

“Western jurisdiction and 'sociologists, from their own angle have struck a like note. Sir Samual Romilly, critical of the brutal penalties in the then Britain, said in 1817 : "The laws of England are written in blood". Alfieri has suggested : 'society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it. George Micodotis, Director of Criminological Research Centre, Athens, Greece, maintains that 'Crime is the result of the lack of the right kind of education.' It is thus plain that crime is a pathological aberration, that the criminal can ordinarily be redeemed, that the State has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub-culture that leads to anti-social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by reculturisation. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology is the individual, and goal is salvaging him for society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today views sentencing as a

¶23

process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of social defense. We, therefore consider a therapeutic, rather than an in 'terrorem' outlook, should prevail in our criminal courts, since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. In the words of George Bernard Shaw : 'If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries'. We may permit ourselves the liberty to quote from Judge Sir Jeoffrey Streatfield : 'If you are going to have anything to do with the criminal courts, you should see for yourself the conditions under which prisoners serve their sentences.'”

¶24

In the case in hand, the record shows that the applicant has remained in jail for about two months out of the total maximum sentence imposed of one year. The accident claiming three lives and leaving some injured had occurred in the year 2002 and almost 20 years have passed by since then. There is no minimum sentence prescribed for the offence the applicant has been held guilty of. Thus in totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served in again sending the applicant to jail after such a long lapse of time and thereby disturbing his already settled family life. Accordingly, keeping in mind the judgment of the Apex Court referred to above, the sentence imposed on the accused/applicant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶25

Revision is thus partly allowed as indicated above.

¶26

Sd/(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶27

Jyotishi

Hinchharam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hinchharam 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bukki @ Tunni Dhanraj Salunke Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Soni @ Sonu Pardhi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Gangaram Chauhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Divyendra Singh Rajput Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Govind Rajbar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pallavi Kurre @ Pallavi Jangde Vs State of Chhattisgarh