"vfc, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. t. Criminal Revision No. 251/2004 Bhuvan Lsd Ganda Vs. State of Chhattisgarh ORDER Post for Order: /2-/10/2011 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR SB: Hpnlble^hri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. APPLICANT Criminal Revision No. 251/2004 Bhuvan Lal Ganda, S/o Hem Lal @ Khoman Lal Ganda age 23 years, R/o village Dongaripali Post Office- Pacheda Police Station Mahasamund Tahsil & District Mahasamund (CG) RESPONDENT Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Offlcer, Police Station Mahasamund District Mahasamund (CG) (Criminal Revision u/s 397/401 ofCr.P.C.l Appearance: ShriVivek Rathore, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Sandeep Yadav, Dy. Government Advocate for the State. ORDER (12.10.2011) Following order of the Court was delivered by SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J (1) This revision is directed against the judgment dated 22.04.2004, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 102/2003 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasarnund (CG). / CRR 251/2004 ^ (2) By the impugned judgment, the appeal filed by the applicant against the judgment dated 11th March 2003, passed in Criminal Case No. 290/2001 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund, whereby he was convicted under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, was dismissed. (3) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- On 20.9.2000, at about 6.00 p.m., the applicant came on his bicycle and dashed his aunt Chhayabai, who was standing by the side of the road. Chhayabai received injuries on her elbow and head. She was brought to the house. She died at about 8.00 p.m. in the house. On postmortem examination, it revealed that there was injury o?i the brain membrane and huge amount of blood was accumulated in the brain tissue. The incident was witnessed by Samaruram (PW-1), who lodged the FIR (Ex. P/l). The learned Magistrate relied on the testimonies of Samaruram (PW-1), Manrakhan (PW-2) and Guhan (PW-4), and held that the accident occurred on account ofrash and negligent driving ofthe •f ^. CRR251/2004 ^^ bicycle by the applicant and the applicant was liable for punishment under Section 304-A IPC. The applicant, thus, was convicted under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced as above. The judgment passed in Criminal Case was affirmed in the Criminal Appeal. (4) Shri Vivek Rathore, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, argued that the finding regarding negligence is not proper. He also argued that the incident took place in the year 2000 and the applicant was throughout on bail except for a period of about 10-12 days; a long tinie has elapsed thereafter; therefore, the applicant may not be sent to jail once again, and, his jail sentence inay be reduced to the period already undergone. (5) On the other hand, Shri Sandeep Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Courts below. (6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the Courts below. ^ 1^1^1 ^-^^ CRR251/2004 ^ (7) A perusal of the evidence of Samaruram (PW-1) would show that he witnessed the incident from a very short distance. He clearly deposed that the applicant caused the incident by negligently driving the bicycle. His bicycle dashed the deceased, who sustained injuries. Samaruram (PW-1) has lodged the FIR (Ex.P/1). Version of Samaruram (PW-1) is supported by the FIR and the evidence of 2 other prosecution witnesses namely- Manrakhan (PW-2) and Guhan (PW-4). There is no allegation that these witnesses were inimical to the applicant and they had a reason to falsely implicate the applicant in the present incident. Even in the cross- exajnination, nothing material could be brought on record, on which, their testimonies may be discarded. Dr. A.K. Tripathi (PW-5) conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found that there was external injury on the left elbow and there Was also injuiy on the brain membrane, having blood accuraulated in the left portion of the brain. (8) On due consideration of the entire evidence available on record, I do not find any infirmity in the flnding recorded by the Courts below that the applicant dashed the deceased by CRR 251/2004 driving his bicycle rashly and negligently, which resulted into her death. ^\ (9) Now I shall consider the second argument. (10) Admittedly, the deceased was the aunt. (badi Maa) of the applicant. They were residing in nearby houses. On the fateful day i.e. on 20.9.2000, the applicant was going soinewhere on his bicycle, but the above incident took place on the road. A long time has elapsed after the incident, and the applicant was throughout on bail except for a period of about 10-12 days just after passing of the judgment by the Appellate Court. Looking to the above facts and circuinstances of the case and further looking to the manner, in which, the accident took place and that a long time has elapsed thereafter, I do not deem it appropriate to send the applicant once again to jail. I am. of the view that the ends of justice would be seryed, if the jail sentence iraposed against the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone and fine imposed against him is suitably enhanced. ^^ 6 ^ CRR 251/2004 (11) For the foregoing reasons, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant under Section 304-A IPC is maintained. The jail sentence awarded to the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the fine of Rs.500/- is enhanced to Rs.1000/-. The applicant is granted two months time to deposit the fine amount. If any gimount has already been deposited, that shall be adjusted in the said amount ofRs.1000/-. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge