Order on Board

04.02.2025

1. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated

07.10.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 18/2013 by the learned Sessions Judge, District – Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.), arising out of the RAJSHEKHAR SONI judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.04.2013 passed Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District – Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 51/2012, whereby, the applicant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:-

CONVICTION SENTENCE Under Section Rigorous imprisonment of 6 months with fine of Rs. 279 of Indian 100/-, in default of payment of fine 20 days of Penal Code (For additional simple imprisonment.

short, IPC)

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 27.10.11 the injured Robinson was going on a motorcycle along with one Mukesh Sharma, when they reached near village Dodrepal the applicantwho was driving a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-17-KA-9081 in a rash and negligent manner came and dashed with the motorcycle driven by Mukesh Sharma. Due to the aforesaid collusion the injured suffered injuries on his leg and waist whereas Mukesh Sharma sustained injuries on his head. Mukesh Sharma was taken to hospital where on 02.11.2011 he succumbed to the injuries. A report was lodged on which investigation was conducted. After completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was filed before the trial Court against the applicant, and the applicant abjured his guilt he was tried for the aforesaid offence.

3. The learned trial Court on perusal of material available evidence on record found the applicants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above. Being aggrieved by the judged of trial Court, the applicants preferred an appeal before the appellate Court. The appellate Court has afÏrmed the decision of the trial Court. Hence, this application.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court failed to consider the material on record, and thus, the applicants have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned in the paragraph 1 of this judgment, and itself is bad in law. Learned counsel emphasized that sentence may be modified suitably by enhancing the fine amount as the applicant has already undergone about 23 days of jail sentence, and the fine amount has already been deposited by him. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by them may be sufÏce to meet the ends of justice by enhancing the fine amount.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel would strongly support the impugned judgment and submits that there is no need to interfere with the sentence.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and available records with utmost circumspection.

7. 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 the paragraph 1 of this judgment, which has been afÏrmed by learned appellate Court. I am of the view that the appellate Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity while afÏrming the conviction of the applicant for offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the IPC, and Section 3/181 of the MV Act. Thus, the convictions are afÏrmed.

8. Now c