Dhananjay Mahar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:745

¶3

Digitally signed by PRAKASH PRAKASH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2026.01.07 14:19:50 +0530

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

NAFR

¶6

Criminal Revision No. 189 of 2016

¶7

Dhananjay Mahar S/o Jagturam Mahar, Aged About 40 Years, R/o. Village Pendarwani, Chowki Kanwar, Police Station Gurur, Tahsil Gurur, Civil and Revenue District Balod, Chhattisgarh,

¶8

... Applicant

¶9

versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh,

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

For Applicant : Mr. Kunal Das, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Sunita Sahu, Panel Lawyer

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board

¶14

06/01/2026

¶15

1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 12.02.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.46/2014 arising out of judgment dated 28.07.2014, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.1147/2013 wherein the Applicant has been convicted under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’) and sentenced for S.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs.1,000/-, S.I. for 2 months and fine of Rs.500/- and S.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional S.I. for 2

¶16

2

¶17

months, 1 month and 2 months respectively. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. However, the Appellate Court while passing the impugned judgment, affirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.

¶18

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 01.10.2013 at about 5:45 PM, Deepak Wadhwani, aged about 15 years, was returning from tuition on an Activa/vehicle along with his friend Kalash Jain (PW-03), who was riding as a pillion rider. At that time, near Khandelwal X-Ray Clinic, a truck bearing registration number CG-07-ZC-1831 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”), which was being driven by the accused/applicant in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the Activa being driven by Deepak Wadhwani, as a result of the said accident, Deepak Wadhwani sustained grievous injuries and later succumbed to death, while his friend Kalash Jain, aged about 15 years, suffered simple injuries. On the basis of the aforesaid incident, an FIR (Ex.P-8) was registered against the applicant. A spot map (Ex.P-5) was prepared, and the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination. Thereafter, statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶19

3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari against the applicant, who abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty.

¶20

4. The learned Trial Court, 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

¶21

3

¶22

judgment dated 12.02.2016 dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision.

¶23

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicant but is challenging the sentence part, which, according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that the applicant has remained in jail for 26 days i.e. from 12.02.2016 to 08.03.2016, and that he has been facing the lis since October, 2013 i.e. for more than 12 years and he has no criminal antecedent. He further submits that the deceased boy was about 15 years of age and, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, was not authorized to drive an Activa/vehicle. Despite this, he was driving the vehicle in the middle of the road, and when a dog suddenly crossed the road, he applied the brakes, as a result of which the alleged accident occured. Kalash Jain (PW-03), who was the pillion rider, has also admitted the aforesaid facts. Apart from this, the fine amount has already been deposited before the concerned Trial Court. Therefore, it is prayed that the jail sentence awarded to the applicant be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and further considering the statements of injured Kalash Jain (PW-03), Ramchandra @ Ramhu (PW-02), supported with the other evidence available on record, this

¶27

4

¶28

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.

¶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 26 days, he is facing the lis since October, 2013 i.e. for more than 12 years and he has no criminal antecedent, this apart, the deceased boy was aged about only 15 years and he was not authorized to drive the vehicle on road, 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. 26 days. However, the jail sentences shall run concurrently.

¶30

10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of applicant under the aforementioned Sections are 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 provision contained under Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE

¶34

Prakash

Dhananjay Mahar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhananjay Mahar 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

Chhotelal and Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Devkumar Suryawanshi

Smt. Asha Soni Vs Durgesh Kumar Soni

C.g. State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Gangu Ram Dewangan Vs Abhishek Kumar Agrawal

State of C.G. Vs Tarun Chandra and Ors.