Ramkrishna @ Krishna Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

CRR No. 303 of 2016

¶5

Order Reserved on 07.01.2026 Order Pronounced on 16.01.2026

¶6

Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.01.16 14:31:39 +0530

¶7

Ramkrishna @ Krishna Yadav S/o Shri Mahajan Yadav Aged About 34 Years R/o College Para Takhatpur, Bilaspur P.S. - Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Balauda Bazar, District Balauda Bazar Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Shri Anjiv Kumar Singh appears on behalf of Shri Bhupendra Singh, Advocate.

¶10

For Respondent/State : Smt. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer.

¶11

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)

¶12

C A V Order

¶13

The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.03.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.23/2012 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, Dist. Balodabazaar whereby judgment dated 13.07.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Simga, Dist. Raipur in Criminal Case No. 652/2010 convicting the applicant under Section 304-A IPC (two counts) and sentencing him to undergo RI for one year-one year with fine of Rs.500/- on each count, in default to pay fine, to undergo further one month RI has been confirmed by the learned appellate Court, while directing the sentences to run separately.

¶14

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.11.2010 at about 16:30

¶15

2

¶16

hours, the applicant/driver was driving the Pick-up vehicle bearing registration No.CG-10-C-3275 (for short, the offending vehicle) in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the Hero Honda Passion vehicle bearing registration No.CG-04-DC-385 and caused accident, owing to which, Mahesh Kumar Sahu and Dikeshwar Sahu, who rode the motorcycle, have died. On a report being lodged to the above extent by the one Manish Soni (P.W.2), F.I.R. under Section 304-A of IPC was lodged against the applicant under Crime No.415/2010 vide Ex.P.2. Offending vehicle of the applicant/accused and that of the motorcycle were seized vide Ex.P.1. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P.3 and merg intimation was also lodged vide Ex.P.5, thereafter dead bodies of were sent to post-mortem vide Ex.P.12 & 13. P.W.6 Dr. G.S.Som, who conducted the post-mortem, opined that the death of deceased persons is accidental in nature. Mechanical report has been brought on record and marked as Ex.P.14.

¶17

After completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 304-A of IPC was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Simga. The applicant/accused abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence while claiming trial.

¶18

Learned trial Court and that of appellate Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant/accused as mentioned in opening paragraph. Hence, this revision.

¶19

Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant/accused would submit that the finding of both the learned Courts convicting and sentencing the applicant, without proper appreciation of evidence, is erroneous. He would further submit that there was no cogent and clinching evidence to

¶20

3

¶21

prove that the applicant was perpetrator of the crime in question while causing accident and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. On these premises, he urged that the revision petition may be allowed. Alternatively, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the applicant/accused is found guilty, then considering the fact that the applicant/accused was in jail for a period of 8 days during trial and that, he is facing lis since 2010, therefore, he may be sentenced the period already undergone by him.

¶22

On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposes the revision and submits that owing to rashness and reckless driving of the applicant/accused, two persons, who were riding the motorcycle, have lost their lives, therefore, the trial Court and appellate Court were justified in convicting the applicant and sentencing him which is just and proper and cannot be reduced to the period already undergone by the applicant.

¶23

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

¶24

P.W.2 Manish Soni had lodged the merg intimations at Police Station Simga with regard to death of two unknown persons vide Ex.P.4 & Ex.P.5 respectively, in which, it is mentioned that the driver of vehicle No.CG-10C-3275 has dashed the motorcycle No.CG-04-CD-3895 and as a result of such dash, they died. P.W.5 Amarchand Sahu prepared the inquests of Mahesh Kumar Sahu & Dikeshwar Sahu vide Ex.P.9 & Ex.P.10 respectively. P.W.6 Dr. G.S.Som, Medical Officer, Simga conducted the post-mortem on the dead bodies of Mahesh Kumar Sahu & Dikeshwar Sahu on 06.11.2010 vide Ex.P.12 & 13 and found multiple injuries over their bodies. He opined that cause of death was shock and excessive

¶25

4

¶26

bleeding and the nature of death was accidental.

¶27

The conviction of the applicant, as recorded by both the Courts, is based on the testimony of P.W.2 Manish Soni and P.W.3 Raju @ Sunil Yadav. P.W.3 Raju @ Sunil Yadav has stated that the accident occurred on 06.11.2010. He deposed that he saw the applicant/accused driving the offending pickup vehicle from Bilaspur towards Raipur and that, near Shankar Nagar, the pickup vehicle coming from the opposite direction dashed against a motorcycle proceeding towards Raipur. As a result, both riders were thrown off the motorcycle onto the road; the motorcycle became trapped under the pickup vehicle, which stopped near an electricity pole after overturning. Since his house is situated near the scene of the incident, he witnessed the accident. He has further stated that although he could not recall the complete registration number of the pickup vehicle, but he remembered that it ended with “3275.” In his cross-examination, nothing was elicited by the defence that would render his testimony unreliable or unworthy of belief. P.W.2 Manish Soni has also corroborated the occurrence of the accident in which two persons lost their lives. He has further stated that due to such dash, the motorcycle was completely damaged and that he lodged the merg intimation vide Exs. P/4 and P/5, as well as the F.I.R. at Police Station Simga vide Ex. P/2. In his cross-examination as well, the defence failed to bring out any material to disbelieve his testimony.

¶28

From the above evidence, it is clear that the offending vehicle was being driven by the applicant/accused in the wrong direction and, while driving the same in a rash and negligent manner, caused the accident, claiming the lives of two innocent persons. There are no major contradictions or omissions in the statements of the above witnesses

¶29

5

¶30

with respect to the accident, and it stands established that the driver of the said vehicle was the applicant. The evidence of the eyewitnesses also finds corroboration from the promptly lodged F.I.R. (Ex. P/2) and the spot map (Ex. P/3), which clearly reveal that at the scene of the incident, the offending pickup vehicle left its correct lane and veered to the left, hitting the motorcycle and resulting in the death of its riders. Further corroboration is drawn from the mechanical reports (Exs. P/14 and P/15), which record damage to the front wheels, mudguard, dashboard, bumper, headlight, bonnet, etc., of the offending vehicle, as well as damage to the motorcycle. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, coupled with the contents of the F.I.R. (Ex.P/2), the seizure memo (Ex.P/1), and the mechanical reports (Exs. P/14 and P/15), it is quite evident that it was the accused/applicant who drove the pickup vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, the two persons riding the motorcycle died. Therefore, I am of the view that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court were fully justified in convicting the applicant, and I do not find any infirmity in the same.

¶31

Now, I shall consider submission of the counsel for the applicant to reduce the sentence awarded by the appellate Court for the period already 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:-

¶32

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

¶33

6

¶34

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.

¶35

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 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”

¶36

Further, in the matter of State of Arunachal Pradesh vs Ramchandra

¶37

Rabidas Alias Ratan Rabidas and another, (2019) 10 SCC 75, it has

¶38

been held by the Supreme Court at paragraph 15 as under:-

¶39

“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.”

¶40

As regards quantum of sentence, 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 two innocent persons have lost their lives due to rash and negligent driving of

¶41

7

¶42

offending vehicle by its driver/applicant/accused, it would not be appropriate for this Court to reduce the sentence already undergone by him, however, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met by sentencing the applicant to rigorous imprisonment for total one year under Section 304-A IPC (two counts) in place of RI for 1 - 1 year (total two years). The fine amount and the default sentence as awarded by the trial Court shall remain intact.

¶43

Consequently, the revision is allowed in part. The applicant is reported to be on bail and he shall surrender before the concerned trial Court for serving remaining jail sentence.

¶44

Sd/(Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE

¶45

Anjani

Ramkrishna @ Krishna Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramkrishna @ Krishna Yadav 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

Satyesh Das Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Munni Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Subhash Chandra Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

M/S Jayka Automobiles and Finance Private Limited Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Ajim Khan

M.javed Akhatar Vs Rana Biswash