Partly allowed¶33

Beeru Nishad v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC22 Jul 2025CRR/179/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh HC revision under S.397/401 CrPC; conviction under SS.279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC for rash and negligent driving (tractor-trolley turned turtle, one death, 21.03.2002) affirmed; jail sentence reduced to period already undergone (10 months 3 days) on grounds of accused's age (about 62 years), 23-year-old lis and no criminal antecedents; sentences concurrent; fine intact; bail bonds kept alive six months under S.437-A CrPC; sentence-reduction jurisprudence in motor accident deaths.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed in part: conviction under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC affirmed; jail sentence reduced to the period already undergone (10 months and 3 days), sentences to run concurrently; fine retained; bail bonds to remain in force for six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. ¶33

Beeru Nishad Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the applicant under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court was justified. +1 more

¶29

Court's answer

Both the Trial Court and the appellate Court were justified in convicting the applicant under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC; the conviction is upheld.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Having regard to the applicant's age (about 62 years), his custody of 10 months and 3 days, the lis pending since 2002 and absence of criminal antecedents, the ends of justice would be met by reducing the jail sentences to the period already undergone; the sentences shall run concurrently and the fine shall remain intact.

¶32

Key takeaways

Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in terms of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRR No. 179 of 2016 — Beeru Nishad v. State of Chhattisgarh (High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal; Order on Board dated 23/07/2025). Revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.04.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No.23/2014 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Saraipali, upholding the judgment dated 27.04.2010 in Criminal Case No.77/2009 (JMFC, Saraipali) convicting the applicant under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC for the tractor-trolley mishap of 21.03.2002 in which Keertan Sahu died during treatment. Counsel for the applicant did not challenge the conviction but sought reduction of jail sentence to the period already undergone. The Court held both the Trial Court and the appellate Court were justified in convicting the applicant; and, considering that the applicant is now aged about 62 years, remained in jail for 10 months and 3 days, is facing the lis since 2002 (over 23 years) and has no criminal antecedents, reduced the jail sentences to the period already undergone, directed that the sentences undergone shall run concurrently, and held the fine intact. As the applicant is on bail, his bail bonds were ordered to remain in force for six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. Revision allowed in part.

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR ALLENA Date: 2025.07.24 17:38:34 +0530

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRR No. 179 of 2016

¶6

Beeru Nishad S/o Chunu Nishad Aged About 42 Years Caste Kenwat, R/o Darrabhatha, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Non-applicant

¶11

For Applicant : Shri Swaraj Kanungo, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer.

¶12

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)

Order on Board

23/07/2025

Heard.

The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.04.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No.23/2014 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Saraipali, Dist. Mahasamund (CG) whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal while upholding the judgment dated 27.04.2010 passed in Criminal Case No.77/2009 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saraipali

¶17

Dist.Mahasamund (CG) convicting and sentencing the applicant as under:-

¶18

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 279 IPC	SI for one month.
Under Section 337 IPC	To pay fine amount of Rs.500/- and in default to pay fine amount, additional SI for one month.

¶19

¶20

Under Section 338 IPC	SI for one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to pay fine amount, additional SI for 3 months.
Under Section 304-A IPC	SI for 2 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof, additional SI for 3 months.

¶21

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.03.2002 at about 10:00 pm the complainant Shokie Lal was going to village Jhilamila to attend the marriage function on a Tractor No.M.P. 23-GA-6442 attached with Trolley No. M.P. 23-GA-6443 (for short, the offending vehicle). Along with him, Shirat, Sanat, Girdhar, Ratan, Kripasindhu, Hemant, Lalit Kumar, Keertan, Padmalochan and Keertan Sahu were also travelling in the said offending vehicle as Baarati. On account of rash and negligent driving by the applicant/driver, the offending vehicle turned turtle, due to which, the persons travelled in the trolley received grievous and simple injuries whereas Keertan Sahu has also received grievous injuries and died during treatment. The incident was reported by the complainant himself on 22.03.2002 in Police Station Saraipali and based on report F.I.R. has been registered against the applicant/driver. All the injured persons were sent for medical examination. During investigation, statements of witnesses have been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

¶22

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saraipali. The applicant abjured his charge and pleaded non-guilty.

¶23

Learned Court of J.M.F.C. Saraipali, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, recorded the finding of conviction and sentence as mentioned in para 1. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 22.04.2015 dismissed the appeal of the applicant while upholding conviction and sentence of the trial Court, as mentioned in opening paragraph. Hence,

¶24

¶25

this revision.

¶26

Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant does not challenge the revision on conviction of the applicant but is challenging the finding of sentence part, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that at the time of incident, applicant was aged about 39 years and now his age is more than 62 years. The applicant has already undergone for 10 months and 3 days, i.e., from 22.04.2015 to 26.02.2016 and he has no criminal antecedents and that, he is facing the lis since March, 2002. Therefore, it is prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant that jail sentence already incarcerated by him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. He further submits that the fine amount has already been deposited in the concerned Court.

¶27

On the contrary, learned State Counsel formally opposed the revision while supporting the impugned judgment

¶28

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

¶29

Considering the statements of P.W.1 Ratanlal and P.W.2 Shoukie Lal supported by the medical evidence of P.W.4 Dr. S.K.Sahu, P.W.17 Amrit and P.W.18 S.D.Baghel, Sub-Inspector and further considering the other evidence and material documents available on record, I am of the view that both the Trial Court as well as appellate Court were justified in convicting the applicant as such.

¶30

As regards jail sentence of the applicant, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering the fact that the applicant is now aged about 62 years and that, the applicant remained in jail for a period of 10 months and 3 days and he is facing the lis since 2002, i.e., for more than 23 years and there are no criminal antecedents against him, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction of the applicant recorded by the trial Court and

¶31

¶32

confirmed by the appellate Court, the jail sentences awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the jail sentences undergone by him shall run concurrently. The fine sentence shall remain in tact.

¶33

Consequently, the revision is allowed in part. The conviction of the applicant under the aforesaid sections is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months as per the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

(Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE

¶36

Anjani

Beeru Nishad v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beeru Nishad v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonu Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Abhishek Sharma Vs Anil Kumar Vishwakarma

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Kumud Paikra

Ajit Singh Bhogal Vs Smt.anju Beragi superintendent

Shivnarayan @ Shivkumar Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Jain Vs Shri Vijay Pal Singh Guliya