Harish Kumar @ Ramsagar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:24521

¶3

NAFR

¶4

Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRR No. 842 of 2016

¶7

Harish Kumar @ Ramsagar S/o Shankar Lal Verma Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Sudela, Thana - City Kotwali, Baloda- Bazar, District- Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Applicant

¶9

versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Baloda Bazar, District - Baloda Bazar – Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

(Cause title is taken from CIS)

¶13

For Applicant : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Mrs. Shubha Shrivastava, PL

¶14

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order On Board

¶15

18.06.2026

¶16

This revision has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.08.2016 passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar in Criminal Appeal No. 44/2015, arising out of the judgment and conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balodabazar passed in Criminal Case No. 1336 of 2012, whereby the applicant has been convicted and sentenced as under :-

¶17

2

¶18

Conviction		Sentence
Under	Section	R.I. for 06 months along with a
304-A of IP	C	fine amount of Rs. 500/-, in
		default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 01 month
Under	Section	Fine amount of Rs. 500/-, in
3/181 of	Motor	default of payment of fine, to
Vehicle Act,	1988	undergo R.I. for 01 month
Under	Section	Fine amount of Rs. 1000/-, in
39/192 of	Motor	default of payment of fine, to
Vehicle Act,	1988	undergo R.I. for 01 month
Under	Section	Fine amount of Rs. 1000/-, in
146/196 of	Motor	default of payment of fine, to
Vehicle Act,	1988	undergo R.I. for 01 month

¶19

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant- Naresh Singh Thakur, a resident of Village- Lavan, reported that on 26.10.2005 he had gone to Village Dhangaon for personal work. At about 6:00 PM, while returning home on his motorcycle via the Dhangaon–Vitkuli road, he noticed a newly purchased red-coloured Sonalika tractor along with a trolley, without registration of number plates, standing on the roadside. The tractor driver was present at the spot and a crowd had gathered nearby. Upon approaching, the complainant saw the dead body of a young boy lying near the tractor with a severe head injury and profuse bleeding. On inquiry, the persons present informed him that the boy had been traveling on the tractor and, due to the driver's rash and negligent driving at a high speed, had fallen from the tractor and was subsequently run over by its rear tyre, resulting in fatal injuries. The bystanders further disclosed that the deceased was Prakashmani, a resident of Village Sudhela; that the tractor belonged to

¶20

3

¶21

Manmohan Singh Paikra; and that it was being driven by Ramsagar @ Harish Kumar Verma, also a resident of Village Sudhela. It was alleged that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent manner in which the tractor was being driven by the applicant. On the basis of this information, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the applicant. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the learned Trial Court.

¶22

In support of its case, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. Thereafter, statement of the accused/applicant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

¶23

The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record by the judgment dated 30.06.2015 convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Subsequently, by the impugned judgment dated 30.08.2016 the learned appellate Court has affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Hence this revision.

¶24

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the impugned judgment is legally unsound, perverse, and therefore liable to be set aside. It is submitted that both the learned trial court and the learned appellate court erred in placing reliance on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, despite the fact that their evidence does not support the prosecution’s case. Moreover, there exist significant contradictions and omissions in the testimonies of the prosecution

¶25

4

¶26

witnesses, which cannot be legally sustained. In view of these factors, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

¶27

Alternatively, it is submitted that if the Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the appellant is just and proper, then considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 2005 and revision is of the year 2016, the age of the applicant at that time i.e., 34 years and applicant has remained in jail for a period of 10 days. It is also submitted that applicant was on bail during trial and also during the pendency of appeal and he did not misuse the liberty extended to him and fine amount has already been deposited by the applicant with the trial Court. He prays that these factors be considered for reducing the period of imprisonment imposed by the courts below to the period of imprisonment already undergone.

¶28

He relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Rakesh Bhandari vs. State of C.G. 1 and in the matter of Mohammad Aslam Khan vs. State of C.G.2

¶29

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that, upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court and Appellate Court have rightly found the applicant guilty of the aforesaid offences. It is further contended that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited in scope and does not warrant interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

¶31

1 CRR No. 1005 of 2015

¶32

2 CRR No. 513 of 2015

¶33

5

¶34

From perusal of the records, it transpires that the trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in paragraph 01 of this judgment. I am of the view that the trial Court and the Appellate Court have not committed any illegality or infirmity in affirming the conviction of the applicant for the aforesaid sections.

¶35

Now, considering the question of sentence, as the applicant is facing criminal trial since 2005 and thereafter more than 20 years has been elapsed, considering the age of the applicant age of the applicant, as per arrest memo he has no criminal antecedents, he was on bail during trial and appeal as also during pendency of this revision and he did not misuse the liberty so granted, he has deposited the entire fine amount and remained in jail for about 10 days. This Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in sending the applicant back to jail at this stage and the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him and the fine amount is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-.

¶36

In the result, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the applicant under Section 304-A of IPC and Section 3/181, 39/192 & 146/196 of Motor Vehicle Act, the substantive jail sentence imposed under Section 304-A of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The applicant has already been deposited the entire fine amount of Rs. 3,000/- with the trial Court. He is directed to pay additional fine of Rs. 7,000/- under Section 304-A of IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 03 months.

¶37

6

¶38

On deposit of the fine amount, entire amount of Rs. 10,000/- shall be disbursed to the dependents/legal heirs of the deceased by the trial Court after due verification. The applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds stand discharged.

¶39

However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS 2023, the applicant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- before the Court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period fo six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid applicant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶40

Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.

¶41

Sd/(Rajani Dubey)

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

AMIT PATEL

Harish Kumar @ Ramsagar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harish Kumar @ Ramsagar 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

Vijay Pawar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Surya Krishi Kendra Vs Radha Traders

Mohd.Usmman Khan Vs Santosh Kumar Lohiya

Prakash Narayan Kaumarya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Laxmi @ Madhu Soni Vs Dr. Lekhram Soni

Smt. Satwati Bai Vs State Of Chhattisgarh