Order on Board

23 .06.2023

1. This revision has been preferred by the Applicant against the judgment dated 08.08.2011 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund District Mahasamund (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 86/2009, arising out of order dated 29.08.2009, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pithoura, District Mahasamund (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 351/2009.

2. According to the case of prosecution, on 27.01.2009, when complainant Santosh (PW-6) accompanied her pregnant wife were going by bicycle towards Government Hospital Sankara and after her medical checkup when they were returning and reached near Paraswani turn, a truck bearing Registration No. CG 04 DB 4840 dashed their bicycle due to which both of them received injuries and during course of treatment wife of the complainant Kantibai died. The matter was reported vide Ex.P-7 by complainant Santosh on 27.01.2009 itself. On the basis of said report, offence has been registered against the Applicant.

3. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pithoura, Mahasamund. Learned JMFC vide its judgment dated 29.08.2009, convicted the Applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 & 304A of the IPC and sentenced him fine of Rs.1000/-, fine of Rs.500/- and RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/- respectively, with default stipulations.

4. Against the said judgment of learned JMFC, a criminal appeal has been preferred by the Applicant. Vide impugned judgment dated 08.08.2011, the Appellate Court affirmed the conviction and fine amount for offence 279 & 337 IPC. However, reduced the jail sentence for offence 304A IPC from 2 years to 1 year and increased the fine amount from Rs. 500/- to

5000/-. Hence, this revision.

5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submits that both the Courts below without having any sufficient evidence available on record convicted and affirmed the conviction of the Applicant. Referring the FIR (Ex.P-7), it is argued by the Counsel that in FIR, overwriting was done in place where registration number of the offending vehicle was written and this fact has not been explained by complainant Santosh (PW-6) as well as by Investigating Officer Shivmangal Pandey (PW-13), therefore, it is not established that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving from the driver of vehicle bearing Registration number CG 04 DB 4840, allegedly driven by the Applicant. Therefore, on this ground only, the Applicant may be entitled to get benefit of doubt. Alternatively, if the Court finds the Applicant guilty, it is argued by the Counsel that the Applicant has no criminal antecedents, he is facing the lis since 2009 i.e. for about 14 years. Therefore, it is prayed that the jail sentence awarded to him may be ended by enhancing the amount of fine.

6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposes the revision and supported the impugned judgment.

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused he record available with utmost circumspection.

8. Undisputedly, there is overwriting in the FIR at a place where the vehicle number is written, but no offer was made to the Investigating Officer Shivmangal Pandey (PW-13) to explain how and under what circumstances the overwriting was done. From the statement of Santosh (PW-6), it is well established that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing Registration Number CG 04 DB 4840. Considering the above, I do not find any sufficient cause on the argument advanced by learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant.

9. Consequently, in considered view of this Court, both the Courts below have rightly convicted the Applicant. Hence, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the Applicant under Sections 279, 337 & 304A of IPC is affirmed and against the conviction he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.40,000/- only which shall be payable with