v^, 'iOl ;v\:l IN THE KEGH COyRT OF..JUDICATURE AT BIIASPHR (C.G.) er.Revis-Lon No« ^ £' 0£ 2004 ( petition undee Section 397/401 of Cr.P.c. ) PETITIONER IN JAII- •";';A'^7 '::0".?^%^>^:. ....s-^aeatS i&! ^'v9T s MaliItRamS/oNetramPatel, aged about 29 years» oecupatioa de.i.ver, resident of Village Domanpur ; Pollce Chowki Chandrapur, P.S. ;;''Dabhra, District Bilaspur (now Janjg.ir Champa). Versus The State of ^Clihattisgarh, Through the Dlstrlct Magisteate. . Raigarh (CG). BETITTON UNDER SECTION_397/401 OF Cr.P.C. -I;- —- ^F-J( WA9<\ PETITIONER RESPONDENT HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. hflr. ^lustice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Revision No. 55/ 2004 Malik Ram. VERSJJS State of Chhattisgarh, Shri Awadh Tripathi aijjd Shri Saraf Raj Khan, counsel for the appellant. ••' Shri Vaibhav Goverdh.an PL for the respondent/State. CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 397/401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ORDER (04.12.2009) This revision is directed against the impugned judgment dated 24.1.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 106/2002 setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh by its judgment dated 27.8.2002 in Criminal Case No. 516/2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 338 and 279 IPC and in lieu thereof convictingthe petitioner under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs. 600. However, the conviction recorded by the learned Magistrate under section 304-A IPC and the resultant sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 200 has been affirmed by the lower Appellate Court. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 6.3.1996 the petitioner was driving the jeep bearing registration No. MP 26-A/4069 and while going from Raigarh to Raipur, near village Katli on Sarangarh Road, he dashedthe same against a tree resulting in the death ofGomti Bai and Mathura Bai who were traveling in the said vehicle as passengers. F^R (Ex. P-12) was registered against the petitioner on 8.3.1996. 3. Prosecution has examined 15 witnesses in support of its case. Statement ofthe petitionerwas also recorded under Section\313 ofthe ''v!,.-. l"i ii1..•%^ Code of Criminal Procedure in which plea of innocence and false implication in the case was taken by him. 4. After appreciation of the evidence available on record learned Magistrate vide its judgmenfr dated 27.8.2002 had convicted the petitioner under Sections 279, 338, 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment u/s 279, rigorous imprisonment for three months with fine of Rs. 600 u/s 338 and rigorous imprisonment for one yeqr with fine of Rs. 200 u/s 304-A of ,'f; the Indian Penal Code. However, on appeal learned lower Appellate Court vide judgment impugned set aside the conviction and sentence under Sections 279 and 338 IPC but affirmed the conviction under Section 304-A IPC and instead of conviction under Section 338, petitioner was convicted under Section 337 IPC. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was driving the vehicle carefully but unfortunately as it was a dark night, due to the reflection of the light of a truck coming from the opposite direction, the accident had taken place. He submits that the witnesses have merely stated that the vehicle in question was being driven fast and this statement alone cannot warrant conviction under Section 304-A or 337 IPC. He submits that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. Lastly he submits that if the conviction of the appellant appears to be justified, the jail sentence is not mandatory and sentence of fine alone would serve the purpose. 6. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that in a revision this Court has very limited scope to interfere with the judgment impugned as no perversity whatsoever is involved in it. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. From the statement of Kanhai Ram (PW-2.) who was also traveling in the jeep in question, it is clear that the vehicle in question was being driven by the petitioner very fast. This witness has stated .•^IJi, vy-ttS r^; —s— that though his son had repeatedly requested the driver to drive the vehicle properly as deceaseci Mathura Bai one ofthe passengers in the said vehicle being ill was required to be shifted to a hospital at Raipur, the petitioner did not pay any'heed to his request and went on driving fast. This witness has further stated that the light of the vehicle in question was on and there was no defect in it. He has denied the fact that any truck was coming from the opposite direction and in an attempt to give side to it, the jetip met with an accident. Ramadhar ,';; alias Ramdhari Sahu (PW-3) who was also traveling in the said jeep has stated in his evidence that the vehicle in question was being driven by the petitioner rashly and negligently as a result of which the accident took place. This witness has also denied the fact that any truck was coming from the opposite direction. Moreover, he has stated that speed of the jeep at the relevant time was around 60 kmph. Damrudhar Sahu (PW-4) has also supported the case of the prosecution and when a question was put by the Court as to how the vehicle was driven by the petitioner, he has stated that Ramadhar alias Ramdhari Sahu (PW-3) - one of the passengers had warned the driver to drive the vehicle slowly but he did not accede to his say and went on driving the vehicle fast. This witness has also stated that the jeep in question was being driven rashly and negligently which led to the unfortunate accident. 9. Thus the above factual analysis seen in the light of the evidence available on record leads this Court to an inevitable conclusion that the petitioner was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and he did not heed to the request made by co-passenger Ramadhar alias Ramdhari Sahu (PW-3) and went on driving the vehicle without taking proper care. There is not even a whisper of evidence to suggest that the petitioner had observed full carefulness while driving the vehicle so that the accident might have been averted. Judgment impugned, in the considered opinion ofthis Court, can therefore not be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference with the same. Revision thus lacks merit and results in dismissal. — - - -— Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker ^'^