,v^.^-^--^-^== ^•^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR ^ i.ii.ia SINGLEBENCH: HON'BLE SHRI RAJESHWAR LAL JHANWAR. J. Criminal Revision No. 307/200t- ^ ~^^ Apnlicant : Mohammad Aslam, S/o Mohmd Ramjan, aged (In Jail) about 36 years, R/o Luchki Para, Durg, Dist. - Durg (C.G.) Non-AppUcant Versus State of Chhatdsgarh through Dist. Magistrate, Durg. CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 397 / 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINALPROCEDURE. Present:- Shri Awadh Tripathi for the applicant. ; Shri Suryakant Mishra, P.L. for the State. ORDER (Passed on 26/04/2010) This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment dated 03.07.2002 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 246 of 2002 by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg whereby while affirming the conviction of the applicant under Section 338 of the I.P.C. and sentence of 3 months RI and fme of Rs.1000/- and in default to further undergo imprisonment for one month set aside the conviction of the applicant under Section 279 of the I.P.C. and sentence of RI for month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo RI for 15 days passed in Criminal Case No. 5/99 videjudgment 5.12.2001 by the J.M.F.C. Durg. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution stoiy is that on 4.6.1998 at about 8 - 8.30 a.m. the complainant - Lalit Saxeriya P.W.3 and the injured - Vikes Mishra P.W.6 were going to Tempo Stand by Scooter which was being driven by Lalit Saxeriya P.W.3 and Vikesh Mishra was pillion rider. At that time, Jeep NO.M.B.T./8917 (for short 'the Jeep') being driven by the applicant rashly and negligently dashed the scooter, while reversing the Jeep, as a result of which, Vikes Mishra sustained injury on his left leg. -i]^..I,i...-:_- "\ ,-"'^]"?**L %'s&. t "'"® ff >5^!?^" '2--' Matter was reported to Police Station Durg by Kranti Mishra P.W.2. The injured - Vikes Mishra was sent for medical examination. Dr. N.C.Kothari P.W.5, after examination, found one injury on his left leg and also fracture. 3. After recording evidence under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and after effecting necessary seizures and corapletion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the J.M.F.C. who framed charge under Section 297 and 338 of the I.P.C. which was read over and explained to the applicant who abjured the guilt and led no evidence in defence. 4. After affording opportunity to the parties and recording evidence, the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the applicant under Section 279 and 338 of the I.P.C. In appeal, while setting aside the conviction under Section 279 I.P.C. and the sentence awarded thereunder, confirmed the conviction of the applicant under Section 338 of the I.P.C. and the senterice awarded thereunder, against which the applicant preferred this revision. 5. Leamed counsel for the applicant submits that he would argue only on the question of sentence and not on merit. He submitted that fine amount has been paid. He further argued that the applicant is a first offender; fhe incident took place in the year 1998 i.e. near about 12 years have elapsed and the applicant remained in jail for about 22 days. Lastly, while submitting that if the Court finds the applicant guilty, then the substantive sentence of three months RI awarded to the applicant be reduced to the period already undergone by the applicant. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the criminal revision and argued in support of the impugned judgment. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of the court below and iinpugned judgment. "\ ''": C^i 's ^ ^Sife. @ ^•^SK. ^ i. ^J •-p--^ - T. 8. Relying upon the evidence of P.W.6 Vikes Mishra, who sustained injury on his left leg while the jeep was rashly and negligently reversing and P.W.5 Dr. N.C.Kothari, who proved the injury sustained by the injured, the appellate Court affirmed the conviction of the applicant under Section 338 of the I.P.C. and sentenced hiin to undergo RI for three months and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo further imprisonment for one month, as awarded by the learned Magistrate. The applicant's conviction under Section338 of the I.P.C., is in my view, purely based on the legal, clinching and credible evidence adduced by the prosecution, and therefore, does not call for any interference. 9. As for the sentence, a period of 12 years have already elapsed since the commission of offence, in the year 1998 and it is also evident froin the record that the applicant has already remained in jail for about 22 days. On considering the facts and circuinstances of the present case in its entirety this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in sending the applicant back to jail now for serving out the remaining jail sentence, at this distance of tirae, after the lapse of period of 12 years since the commission of offence. In my opinion the jail sentence undergone by the applicant along with the sentence of fine, imposed by the appellate Court, would be sufficient punishment, for the offence found proved against the applicant and would meet the ends ofjustice. 10. For the foregoing reasons the revision petition is allowed in part. Applicant's conviction under Secdon 338 of the I.P.C. and sentence of fine awarded thereunder are hereby affirmed. The jail sentence of RI for three months, for the reasons mentioned hereinabove is reduced to the period already undergone by the applicant. R.L. J Judge fi:lf"<l \ |!i::tt^.._ '% i^fe.. 1 'llsl! "s s Hlr!?!^w "'".M.HC—78 -3-TCf "4]<1|ia^, ®'<ll'>H<|(o, fq^K-iy ^...<^L...:M^/Q.^....•^200 SD^T T?q? (ij»li^d<^T) sn^i qii R-ii* TWT 311^1 WS^ WIIWHfg? 311^1 <*i^id<Ti-< ^1'refi ^i fest <ra*4i< ^sifinsiR^ SB: Hon'ble Sbri Justice R.L.Jhanwar. l4wyer for fhe Stete. toiber of Criminal Revision has |2007, whereas it should bc 04.05.2Q1Q None for appUcant. Shri S.K. Mishra, Panel In fhe cause tifle, ffae u.4 wrongly been lyped as 307^ 307 /'2002. Accordingly, the correcti^n is carried out ia the open Court. R.L.. Jhanwar Judge