2025:CGHC:59313 Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date:

2025.12.16 NAFR

11:34:00 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 637 of 2005 Mohammad Shamim Khan, S/o. Mohd. Aaminuddin Khan, aged about 34 years, R/o. Near Anand Hotel, Samir Bhawan, P.S. Tarbahar, Distt. Bilaspur (CG)

... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, PS Bodhghat, Distt. Bastar ... Respondent For appellant : Mr. Vikash Shrivastava, Adv.

For Respondent : Mr. Shailesh Puria, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Mr. Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J)

Judgment on Board

5 / 12 /2025

1 This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant under Section

374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1- 8-2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur (CG) in Sessions Case No. 154/2005, whereby the appellant/ accused has been convicted for the offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo RI for 2 years, to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for 3 months.

2 Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that, 18-10-2005 at about 8.30 pm, appellant/accused while coming from Bailadila to Bilaspur driving a bus bearing registration No. 04 E 0742 (henceforth referred to as ‘offending vehicle’), in a rash and negligent manner, dashed a little girl namely Somiya Mishra, aged about 6 years, as a result of which, she succumbed to the injuries as her head was crushed in the accident. Dehati merg intimation (Ex. P-8) was lodged in Police Station Bodhghat and FIR (Ex. P-7) was registered against the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 304 of the IPC. Inquest and Post mortem on the dead body of the deceased Somiya Mishra were conducted vide Ex. P-5 and Ex. P-6 respectively. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded, spot maps (Ex. P-9) was prepared. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 304 of the IPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagdalpur, who committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur, who conducted trial.

3 Learned trial Court framed charge under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC against the appellant/accused, who absurd his guilt and claimed trial.

4 In order to prove the guilt of appellant/accused, the prosecution examined 7 and exhibited 13 documents, statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded in which, he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. He has also examined 3 witnesses in his defence.

5 Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution, acquitted the appellant/accused of the offence under Section 304-I, IPC instead thereof, convicted him under Section 304A of the IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

6 Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, as per prosecution, Sikandar Manikpuri (P.W. 1) and Shashikant Thakur (P.W. 2) are said to be eye-witnesses, but they have only stated that, the offending vehicle was being driven by the appellant/accused in high speed, they have not stated that what was the speed of the offending vehicle. Sikandar Manikpuri (P.W. 1) has also stated that, appellant was driving the offending vehicle by swaying it, but this fact does not get support from deposition of Shashikant Thakur (P.W. 2), who is said to be another eye-witness. He further submits that, since at the place of occurrence, there was huge crowd becaue of Durga Pandal, therefore, the offending bus was not in over speed, rather the deceased girl herself came before the bus. Hence, it was not in the control of the appellant to avoid the alleged accident. He further submitted that, no element of recklessness and negligence on the part of the appellant/accused has been proved by the prosecution.