The court maintained a conviction for rash and negligent driving causing death but reduced the substantive jail sentence to the period already undergone, while enhancing the fine, considering the time elapsed since the incident and the applicant's conduct.

Order On Board

1. This revision has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.08.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 11/2015 affirming the judgment dated 13.08.2015 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 406/2012 whereby the applicant has been held guilty under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC and considering the provisions of Section 71 of IPC, the offence under Section 304A of IPC being inclusive of offence under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC, sentenced the applicant under Section 304A of IPC to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 year and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, to suffer additional R.I. for 15 days.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that the complainant, Krishna Kumar Vaidya, lives in the village Sonabal, currently in the hospital ward of Kondagaon under the Kondagaon police station, and works as a paper distributor. On 27.07.09, at around 5 a.m., he was on his way to distribute papers when he came to know that an accident had occurred near the Bhelwapadar Jagdalpur check post. Upon reaching the spot, he found that Maheshwar, Hiralal, Smt. Phulmati Bai and Lokeshwar Nag were dashed by the offending vehicle red-orange coloured truck bearing Registration No. CG-04/ZC-1745 which was being driven by the accused/applicant Jageshwar Sinha in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which Hiralal and Maheshwar sustained injuries whereas, Smt. Phulmati Bai and Lokeshwar Nag sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Upon receiving the information, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the accused in FIR No. 250/09. After the accident, the injured were taken to the hospital, and the deceased were subjected to post-mortem. In the investigation, a spot map of the incident was prepared and witnesses were examined and after completing necessary investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the learned trial Court.

3. In support of its case, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. Thereafter, statement of the accused/applicant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

4. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record by the judgment dated 13.08.2015 convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in para 1 of this order. Subsequently, by the impugned judgment dated 09.08.2016 the learned appellate Court has affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Hence this revision.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the impugned judgment is legally unsound, perverse, and therefore liable to be set aside. It is submitted that both the learned trial court and the learned appellate court erred in placing reliance on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, despite the fact that their evidence does not support the prosecution’s case. The courts below allegedly failed to properly consider the cross-examination of the witnesses and arrived at an erroneous conclusion holding the applicant guilty. The prosecution witnesses did not corroborate the contents of the F.I.R. or their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., thereby rendering the judgment legally untenable. Moreover, there exist significant contradic