Order on Board

02/02/2024

1. In compliance of the order dated 08.01.2024 passed by this Court, the applicant is present today before this Court, who has been duly identified by his counsel Mr. Kunal Das. His presence be marked.

2. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.04.2014 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhamtari in Criminal Appeal No.60/2013, in which the present applicant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 338 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-, under Section 279 IPC, he has been convicted till rising of the Court and under Section 146/196 of the Motor Vehicle Act, he has been sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/-. The impugned judgment is arising out of order dated 29.06.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Class-II, Dhamtari in Criminal Case No.56/2013, in which the learned trial Judicial Magistrate has convicted the applicant under Section 338 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-, under Section 279 IPC, he has been convicted till rising of the Court and under Section 146/196 of the Motor Vehicle Act, he has been sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17.02.2013, while the complainant Khilawan Singh was going towards Sankara, he met with an accident by the offending vehicle No. CG 07 – LL – 0979 (Scorpio) driven by the present applicant. Out of the said accident, the complainant received so many injuries on his body, thereafter, the crime has been registered as Crime No. 40/2013 under Section 279, 337, 338 of IPC and under Section 146/196 of the Motor Vehicle Act before Police Station, Arjuni. The charge-sheet was filed and the offences punishable under aforesaid Sections were leveled against the revisionist.

4. The learned trial Court found that the revisionist is guilty of offences punishable under Section 279 & 338 of IPC and under Section 146/196 of the Motor Vehicle Act and awarded punishment as mentioned above vide order dated 29.06.2013.

5. Feeling aggrieved with the said judgment, the revisionist has filed criminal appeal before the Sessions Judge, Dhamtari. The Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment dated 02.02.2014 though affirmed the conviction, but partly modified the sentence awarded by the trial Court. Hence, this criminal revision.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that both the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence and documents available on record on its right perspective. He would further submit that both the Courts below also failed to appreciate the fact that the complainant did not follow the traffic rule when he was crossing the road on account of which the accident took place. Thus, both the Courts below have committed gross illegality in convicting the revisionist. Alternatively, he submits that the appellate Court has awarded the sentence of RI for three months and fine of Rs.200/- under Section 338 of the IPC and fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 146/196 of the Motor Vehicle Act to the applicant. Considering the fact that the applicant is facing criminal trial since 2013, learned counsel only emphasized that sentence may be modified suitably as the applicant has already deposited the fine amount and has undergone 07 days of jail sentence as the Sessions Judge, Dhamtari has modified the conviction and sentence of the applicant awarded by the trial Court in Criminal Case No.56/2013 on 29.06.2013 vide its order dated 02.04.2014 and bail was granted to him by this Court on 10.04.2014. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by him may be suffice to meet the ends of justice.

7. Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State, submits that both the Courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant, in which no interference is called for.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival subm