Dismissed

Abdul Razaa v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC4 Nov 2024CRR/366/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision against a conviction and six-month rigorous imprisonment sentence for rash and negligent driving causing death. The court applied Supreme Court precedents on sentencing policy, rejecting the argument for sentence reduction to time already served, and directed the appellant to surrender and remain in custody.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision dismissed; appellant directed to surrender to Trial Court and serve remaining jail term.

Abdul Razaa Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

1 / 8

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2024.11.06 14:57:13 +0530

¶5

CRR No. 366 of 2012

¶6

Abdul Razaa S/o Abdul Rahman, Aged About 36 years, R/o Near Kota Masjid, P.S. Amanaka Raipur, Tehsil and Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, ... Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

• State of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent

¶9

For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Agnihotri, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate

¶10

For State/Respondent : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, Panel Lawyer

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

05/11/2024

¶14

This revision has been preferred by the applicant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.05.2012 passed by the learned 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), in Criminal Appeal No.27/2012, affirming the judgment dated 24.02.2012 passed in Criminal Case No.471/2010 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), whereby the applicant was convicted under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months

¶15

2 / 8

¶16

with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional S.I. for one month.

¶17

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26.12.2008 at about 04:30 PM, the complainant Naresh Kumar Ratre (PW-3) was going along with deceased Saheb Lal Ratre to Sulabh Complex near Shyam Takies. It is alleged that when they reached near Subham Complex, Budhapara, a Metador bearing registration No.CG-04-G-2788 dashed the deceased Saheb Lal Ratre from behind and moved forward. Thereafter, the driver stopped the said vehicle, came back and upon seeing the deceased lying in the pool of blood, fled away from the spot. Then the complainant Naresh with the help of one person, took the deceased Saheb Lal to Ram Krishna Hospital, Raipur where he succumbed to death. Thereafter, the matter was reported by the complainant Naresh Kumar Ratre to the Police Station City Kotwali, Raipur, pursuant to which merg intimation (Ex.P-7) was lodged and FIR (Ex.P-5) was registered against the applicant. Postmortem over the dead body of deceased was conducted by Dr. Ullas Gonnarde (PW-6), who gave his report vide Ex.P-8 wherein he found that the death of the deceased was due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of multiple head injuries. During investigation, spot map (Ex.P-6) was prepared and offending vehicle and its documents were seized from the applicant vide seizure memo Ex.P-9 and accused/applicant was arrested.

¶18

After recording statements of the witnesses, charge sheet was filed against the applicant under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A of IPC. The trial Court framed the charge under Section 304-A of IPC against the applicant which was denied by him and he prayed for trial.

¶19

3 / 8

¶20

So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses. Statement of the accused/applicant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In his defence, he has examined none.

¶21

Learned Court of JMFC after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in the paragraph No. 1 of this judgment. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 31.05.2012, dismissed the appeal while upholding the judgment of the Court of JMFC. Hence, this revision.

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicant for the offence under Section 304-A of the IPC, but confines his argument on sentence part only, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that the incident is of year 2008, he has no criminal antecedents and he is facing the lis since 2008, i.e. for more than 15 years. Moreover, the applicant has remained in jail for about 33 days i.e. from 31.05.2012 to 29.06.2012. Therefore, it is prayed by counsel for the applicant that the jail sentence awarded to him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Reliance has been placed in the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2009 (3) CGLJ 424.

¶23

On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment learned counsel for the State submits that conviction and sentence of the

¶24

4 / 8

¶25

accused/applicant are strictly in accordance with law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same warranting interference by this Court.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶27

In order to convict the applicant in the crime, the learned trial Court dealt with the evidence of prosecution witnesses, particularly Naresh Kumar Ratre (PW-3), who is the eye-witness to the incident and has stated that on the date of incident i.e. 26.12.2008, when he along with the deceased Saheb Lal Ratre were going to attend nature call near Shyam Takies towards Budhapara, at that time, the applicant/driver of the offending vehicle by driving the same in rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased from behind as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. After the incident, applicant stopped the vehicle, came to the spot and after seeing the deceased in a pool of blood, fled away from the spot. He further stated that after the incident, he took the deceased to Ram Krishna Hospital, Raipur where during course of treatment after 2-3 hours, deceased died. The statement of this witness has not been rebutted by the defence during cross-examination.

¶28

To support the evidence of Naresh Kumar Ratre (PW-3), Ramesh Kumar Parikh (PW-4) has stated that on the oral complaint given by the complainant Naresh Kumar Ratre regarding accident, he lodged the FIR (Ex.P-5) and investigated the matter. He further stated that after investigation, he seized the offending vehicle and its documents from the applicant vide seizure memo Ex.P-9 and duly proved the same.

¶29

11.Furthermore, Dr. Ullas Gonnarde (PW-6), Demonstrator at Medical College Raipur, in his statement has stated that he has conducted the

¶30

5 / 8

¶31

postmortem of the deceased Saheb Lal Ratre and upon examination he found injuries i.e. (i) rigor mortis present all over the body in strong condition (ii) 15cm x 10 cm abrasion graze present over face right part with transverse lacerated wound at right eye brow 6cm x 2cm x bone deep and opined that death of the deceased was caused due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of multiple head injuries.

¶32

Thus, from the evidence of eye-witness i.e. Naresh Kumar Ratre (PW3) as well as the evidence of Ramesh Kumar Parikh (PW-4), who have duly supported the case of the prosecution, it stands proved that it was the accused/applicant, who on the date of incident by driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner dashed the deceased Saheb Lal Ratre and caused the accident, resulting into his death. The evidence of eye-witness Naresh Kumar Ratre (PW-3) was also found corroboration from the promptly lodged F.I.R. (Ex.P-5) and that there is no major contradictions or omissions in the statements of the above witnesses and their evidence also finds corroboration from the medical evidence of (PW-6) Dr. Ullas Gonnarde, who has examined and conducted the postmortem of the deceased and proved the same vide Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-8. In these circumstances, both the Courts below have concurrently held that the prosecution has successfully proved its case under Section 304-A of IPC. I am of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by both the Trial Courts is the finding of fact based on evidence led by the prosecution which is not perverse and thus needs no interference by this Court.

¶33

Now considering the submission of the counsel for the applicant to reduce the sentence awarded by the Trial Courts for the period already

¶34

6 / 8

¶35

undergone by the applicant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi , reported in (2015) 5 SCC 182, while considering the concept of adequacy of quantum of sentence for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC has held as under:-

¶36

“23. In the instant case, the factum of rash and negligent driving has been established. This court has been constantly noticing the increase in number of road accidents and has also noticed how the vehicle drivers have been totally rash and negligent. It seems to us driving in a drunken state, in a rash and negligent manner or driving with youthful adventurous enthusiasm as if there are no traffic rules or no discipline of law has come to the centre stage. The protagonists, as we perceive, have lost all respect for law. A man with the means has, in possibility, graduated himself to harbor the idea that he can escape from the substantive sentence by payment of compensation. Neither the law nor the court that implements the law should ever get oblivious of the fact that in such accidents precious lives are lost or the victims who survive are crippled for life which, in a way, worse than death. Such developing of notions is a dangerous phenomenon in an orally society. Young age cannot be a plea to be accepted in all circumstances. Life to the poor or the impecunious is as worth living for as it is to the rich and the luxuriously temperamental.

¶37

24.Needless to say that the principle of sentencing recognizes the corrective measures but there are occasions when the deterrence is an imperative necessity depending upon the facts of the case. In our opinion, it is a fit case where we are constrained to say that the High Court has been swayed away by the passion of mercy in applying the principle that payment of compensation is a factor for reduction of sentence to 24 days. It is absolutely in the realm of misplaced sympathy. It is, in a way mockery of justice. Because justice is “ the crowning glory”, “ the sovereign mistress” and “queen of virtue” as Cicero had said. Such a crime blights not only the lives of the victims but of many others around them. It is ultimately shatters the faith of the public

¶38

7 / 8

¶39

in judicial system. In our view, the sentence of one year as imposed by the trial Magistrate which has been affirmed by the appellate Court should be reduced to six months”

¶40

Further, in the matter of State of Arunachal Pradesh vs Ramchandra Rabidas Alias Ratan Rabidas and another¹ , it has been held by the Supreme Court at paragraph 15 as under:-

¶41

“15. This Court has time and again emphasised on the need to strictly punish offenders responsible for causing motor vehicle accidents. With rapidly increasing motorisation, India is facing an increasing burden of road traffic injuries and fatalities. The financial loss, emotional and social trauma caused to a family on losing a bread winner, or any other member of the family, or incapacitation of the victim cannot be quantified.”

¶42

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred matters as to sentencing policy and further taking into consideration that one innocent person has lost her life due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver/applicant, it would not be appropriate to reduce the sentence awarded from 6 months to 1 month. Thus, the argument advanced by the applicant in this behalf is hereby rejected. Further, the judgment cited by learned counsel for the applicant, being distinguishable on facts, is of no helpful in the light of above observation.

¶43

In the result, the criminal revision being without any substance is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, it is directed that the applicant shall surrender before the Trial Court concerned and on surrender, he shall be taken into

¶44

1 (2019) 10 SCC 75

¶45

8 / 8

¶46

custody and sent him to jail concerned to incarcerate the remaining jail sentence.

¶47

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

¶48

Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge

¶49

Prakash

Abdul Razaa v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Razaa 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

Yakub Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Kumar Bhagat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sandeep Vs State of C.G.

Sundaru @ Sundar Vs State Of C.g.

Ranjlal and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shahajada @ Shahjad Ali Vs State of Chhattisgarh