Godhan Koma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned judgment dated 10.08.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Balod, District - Balod (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.17/2016 whereby the learned Appellate Court has affirmed the order of conviction and sentence dated 27.01.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dallirajhara, District – Balod (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.528/2015, convicting the applicant/accused under Sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one month and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of

¶17

2

¶18

payment of fine, additional R.I. for 5 days and R.I. for one year and fine amount of Rs.2,000/-, in default, 15 days additional R.I. respectively, with a direction to run the sentences concurrently.

¶19

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 25.09.2015 at about 2:00 PM, deceased Subhash Dev Reddy was going on the road and at that time, the applicant/driver of one vehicle TATA ACE bearing registration No.CG-04-JB-8264 (offending vehicle) rashly and negligently dashed Subhash Dev Reddy, consequent to which, he sustained grievous injuries and during course of his treatment, he died in the hospital and after the death of Subhash Dev Reddy (deceased), the case was registered against the applicant. During the course of investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

¶20

3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of JMFC, Dallirajhara (CG) against the applicant, who abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty.

¶21

4. Learned Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. The said judgment was challenged by the applicant in Criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 10.08.2016 dismissed the same. Hence, this revision.

¶22

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that she does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicant and confines her argument on the sentence part only, which, according to her, is on higher side. She further submits that the applicant has remained in jail for 21 days i.e. from 10.08.2016 to 30.08.2016, he is facing the lis

¶23

3

¶24

since 2015 i.e. for more than 10 years, he has no criminal antecedent and the fine amount has already been deposited before the concerned trial Court. She further submits that at the time of alleged accident, the applicant was a young boy aged about 21 years only, and the accident occurred due to sudden break failure of the offending vehicle which has duly been proved vide Ex.P-12 (Mechanical Examination Report) and after the accident, the applicant himself took the injured Subhash Dev Reddy to the B.S.P. Hospital wherein during course of the treatment the injured died. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Reliance has been placed in the matter of Krishna Kumar Chauhan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh passed in CRR No.1109 of 2015 decided on 21.11.2024.

¶25

6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment passed by the learned JMFC and Appellate Court.

¶26

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

¶27

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, statements of Lalit Jhan (PW-02), R. Appal Raju (PW-03), Manish Sen (PW-04) and Dr. Amit Kumar Jha (PW-06) who has specifically stated that the injured Subhash Dev Reddy suffered grievous injuries due to road accident and during course of his treatment he died, further considering the other evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is correct finding. Thus, I hereby affirm the conviction of the applicant.

¶28

4

¶29

9. As regards the sentence part of the applicant, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the facts that applicant has remained in jail for about 21 days, he is facing the lis since 2015 i.e. for more than 10 years, he has no criminal antecedent, fine amount has already been deposited, further, at the time of alleged accident the applicant was a young boy aged about 21 years and the accident occurred due to failure of break of the offending vehicle, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served to send the applicant back to jail again, and ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon applicant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 21 days. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

¶30

10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of applicant under the aforementioned Sections is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is hereby affirmed.

¶31

11. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of the provision contained under Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE

¶34

Prakash

Godhan Koma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Godhan Koma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.g. Environment Conservation Board Vs Shri P.k. Agrawal and Anr.

Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board Vs South Eastern Coalfield Limited secl and Anr.

Ishwari Bai Mahar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Dr. Nirwan Kumar Tiwari

Jai Kumar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Bhagatram Sarthi (Died) through Lrs- Vs State Of Chhattisgarh