NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 586 of 2012 Dharam Manjhi S/o Bunchhuram Manjhi Aged About 34 Years R/o Nayapara Digitally Mahasamund , Tahsil And Distt. Mahasamund C.G. ... Applicant/Petitioner signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR versus Date:

2026.02.03

17:35:12 +0530 State Of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate Mahasamund, District –

Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Shri Atanu Ghosh, Deputy Government Advocate.

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)

Order on Board

02/02/2026 Heard.

1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.09.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.96/2010 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund (C.G.) whereby the appeal is dismissed affirming the judgment dated 29.08.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pithora, Dist. Mahasamund in Criminal Case No.182/2009 convicting and sentencing the applicant as under :

Under Section 304-A of IPC To undergo RI for one and half (4 counts) years on each count.

All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.04.2006 at about 14.00 hours, the applicant/driver was driving the Swaraj Mazda vehicle bearing registration No. C.G-04-G-0479 (for short, the offending vehicle) in a rash and negligent manner and at village Dhak near Bhola Dhabha situate on N.H.6 caused the accident making the offending vehicle to overturn, owing to which, 24 persons were injured whereas 4 persons, namely, Thanuram, Bhagirathi, Bhojram and Panchuram have died. On a report being lodged to the above extent by Forest Guard Jagturam Thakur (P.W.2), Dehati Nalishi was lodged vide Ex.P.1, on which basis, F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant under Crime No.90/2006 vide Ex.P.11. Offending vehicle of the applicant/accused and its relevant documents were seized vide Ex.P.3 & P.4 and the applicant was arrested vide Ex.P.5. Injured persons were sent to the C.H.C. Pithora for their medical examination.

3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under Sections 279, 337 &

304-A of IPC was filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate Mahasamund. The applicant/accused abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence while claiming trial.

4. Learned trial Court and that of appellate Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant/accused as mentioned in opening paragraph. Hence, this revision.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant/accused submits that the finding of both the learned Courts convicting and sentencing the applicant, without proper appreciation of evidence, is erroneous. She further submits that the accused/applicant was not driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident and as per the statements of P.W.3 Somnath, P.W.4 Satyanarayan Sahu, owner of the offending vehicle, P.W.6 Ku. Khemin Bai, P.W.8 Bhagwantin Bai, P.W.9 Binda Bai, P.W.11 Dayalu Ram and P.W.12 Ashok, it is clear that the applicant was not driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, both the learned trial Court and appellate Court have erred in convicting the applicant which is not sustainable. On these premises, she urged that the revision petition may be allowed and the applicant be set at liberty.

6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposes the revision and submits that as per evidence of injured eye witnesses, namely, P.W.18 Chander Singh, P.W.19 Setram, P.W.22 Dhanmoni, P.W.23 Sawan Bai and P.W.24, owing to rash and negligent driving of the applicant/accused, P.W.3 Somnath, P.W.6 Ku.