Order on Board

23/06/2023

1. This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated

21.06.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.247/2011 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh, arising out of judgment dated 20.03.2009 passed by the JMFC, Balod, Chhattisgarh in Criminal Case No.789/2007 whereby the Appellate Court has afÏrmed the conviction of the applicant for the ofËence punishable under Sections 279, 337 of the IPC and sentenced to pay fne of Rs.200/- and fne of Rs.300/- respectively. However, the Appellate Court afÏrmed conviction under Section 304(A) of the IPC and sentence to pay Rs.500/- but reduced the period of sentence from six months to three months.

2. According to the case of prosecution, on 19.06.2007 at about 8:30 PM, Dharmendra Bapna (deceased) and pillion rider Gourav @ Guru (PW-12) was going to Baloda on a motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-07-LG-8449. The applicant herein was also coming from the opposite side on a motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-07-3526. It is alleged that applicant was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased due to which the deceased and Gaurav sustained injuries and during course of treatment the deceased died. Thereafter, the matter was reported in the police station. Statement of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was fled before the concerned Magistrate. The concerned Magistrate after completion of trial, convicted and sentenced the applicant for the ofËence mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment.

3. Being aggrieved with the judgment of the trial Court, applicant preferred appeal before the Appellate Court but the conviction and sentence was afÏrmed by the said Court. However, the Appellate Court afÏrmed conviction under Section 304(A) of the IPC but reduced the period of sentence from six months to three months.

Hence, this revision has been preferred.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant has been wrongly convicted by the trial Court without their being sufÏcient and clinching evidence available on record. The Appellate Court has also wrongly afÏrmed the conviction of the applicant. He further submits that it is not in dispute that the alleged accident occurred between two motorcycles which was driven by the deceased and another one was driven by the applicant. Referring to the spot map (Ex.P-5) and the statement of Vivek Ram (PW-7), Investigating OfÏcer, it is submitted that the accident occured in the middle of the road and both the drivers were negligent while riding the motorcycles. Further, referring to the statement of Dhanraj (PW- 11), it is stated that deceased was the person who was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner due to which the accident occured. Thus, on this ground, the conviction of the applicant is not sustainable.

5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment and submits that the sentence awarded by the Trial Court is just and proper and requires no interference.

6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely.

7. It is not in dispute that the alleged accident occured between two motorcycles bearing registration nos. No.CG-07-LG-8449 and CG-07- 3526 and according to the spot map (Ex.P-5) both motorcycles were coming from opposite side and accident occured in the middle of the road which has been also admitted by Vivek Ram (PW-7), Investigating OfÏcer. The eye witness of the case Gourav (PW-12), who was sitting with the deceased in the motorcycle, has deposed in his Court statement that the accident occured between both the motorcycle but he has not stated anything that who was person riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. This witness was also not declared hostile by the prosecution. Another witness of the incident Dhanraj (PW-11) who was siti