J^ ^Je^ •i <•<:Y ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Criminal Revision No. 261 of 2003 Rosan Lal Vs. State of C.G. ORDER Post for Order:2.&/09/2011 Sd/- SunUKumar Siaha Judge A^K.k ^•--3'^a^a^r HtGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. APPLICANT RESPONDENT Criminal Revision No. 261 of 2003 Rosan Lal S/o Shri Murarilal Agarwal, Aged about 40 years, R/o In front of State Bank, House of Lalbabu, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) Versus State of C.G. fhrough Station House Officer, Police Station Korba (C.G.) (Criminal Revision u/s 397 read with Section 401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) Appearance: Mr. Ravish Verma, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (2.6.09.2011) (1) This revision is directed against the judgment dated 13.5.2003 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 43/2003 by the Additional Session Judge, Korba (C.G.). By the impugned judgment, the appeal filed by the applicant against the judgment and order dated 14.2.2003 passed in Criminal CaseNo. 189/2002 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba, whereby, the applicant was convicted u/s 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo R.l. for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, has been dismissed. (2) On 4.2.99, Ku. Sarswati, a girl aged about 3 years, met with an accident caused by offending truck bearing Registration No. MP- 23D/9017. The truck was being driven by the applicant. Sarswati received 'multiple injuries and succumbed to those injuries. The matter was \A-~ w Criminal RevisionNo. 261 of 2003 reported to the police, on which, an offence u/ss 279 & 304-A IPC was registered and a charge-sheet was filed. The learned Magistrate relied on the testimonies of Badri Prasad (PW-1), Bhola Prasad (PW-2), Budhhu (PW-3) and Kachra Bai (PW-5) and held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by the applicant. The applicant, thus, was convicted u/s 304-A IPC and sentenced as aforementioned. The conviction and sentence was maintained in appeal. (3) Mr. Ravish Verma, learned counset appearing on behalf of the applicant, has not argued on the merits of the case. He has only argued on question of sentence. His submission was that the accident took place on 4.2.99; the applicant is facing the prosecution since then; he has already undergone for more than one & half months, therefore, he may not be sent to jail once again and the jail sentence imposed against the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone. (4) On the other hand, Mr. Satish Gupta, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the courts below. (5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties;at length and have also perused the records of the courts below. (6) The findings of the courts below are based on sufficientmaterial on record. Badri Prasad (PW-1), Bhola Prasad (PW-2), Budhhu (PW-3) and Kachra Bai (PW-5) all have supported the case of the prosecution. The versions ofthe above witnesses are supported by the F.I.R. (Ex.-P/1). On II ^'^ Criminal RevisionNo. 261 of 2003 due consideration of the entire evidence available on record, 1 do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the courts below that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by the applicant resulting into death ofthe deceased. (7) So far as adequacy of sentence is concerned, the accident occurred in February, 1999. Since then the applicant is on bail, except the above period of 49 days. The applicant has faced the agony of trial for a long period. 1 am of the view that in the above facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be appropriate to send the applicant once again to jail and the ends ofjustice would be served, ifthejail sentence awarded to the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone and the fine imposed upon him is enhanced. ^ (8) Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The conviction of the applicant u/s 304-A IPC is maintained. However, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone, but the fine sentence awarded to him is enhanced to Rs.2,000/-. The fine amount if paid earlier by the applicant, shall be adjusted in the said amount. The applicant is granted two months time to deposit the said amount, failing which, he shall be liable to undergo S.l. for 3 months. F" sa^rS^a L -rt1^wa1r ^^d-^ vatti i J, 1 T