1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Criminal Revision No. 390 of 2021

Neeraj Agrawal, S/o Shri Madan Mohan Agrawal, aged about 45 years,

R/o Agrasen Chowk, Police Station – Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, District

Raipur (C.G.)

---- Applicant

Versus

The State of Chhattisgarh, through : The Police Station, Civil Lines,

Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

----Non-applicant

For Applicant : Mr. Rajat Agrawal, Advocate.

For Non-applicant : Mr. D.K. Tiwari, Dy. Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi

Order On Board

23.07.2021

(1)

The proceedings of matter have been taken-up through Video

Conferencing.

(2)

This revision is directed against the order dated 24.3.2021 passed by 11^th

Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Session Trial No. 116/2021 whereby charge

under Section 304 IPC has been framed against the applicant.

(3)

The facts of the case in brief is that on 1.3.2020 one J.R. Sahu was

returning back after morning walk and at that time when he was walking on left

side of the corner of the road, at the same time applicant while driving the Maruty

Swift Car bearing registration No. C.G.-04/LV/5678 in high speed, dashed him

and dragged him up to some distance, as a result of which, J.R. Sahu (since

deceased) sustained grievous injuries and as a result of that he succumbed to

the said injuries, thereafter, the applicant fled away from the spot. Based on this,

2

FIR was lodged by his son namely Manohar Lal Sahu under Section 304 IPC.

After usual investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the applicant under

Section 304 of the IPC.

(4)

On the basis of evidence of eye-winesses and other material available on

record, learned 11^th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur framed charge under

Section 304 of the IPC against the applicant, which has been challenged by the

applicant by filing the instant revision petition.

(5)

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that killing a person with

requisite intention, killing a person with intention to cause such bodily injury as is

likely to cause his death or with such knowledge that it is likely to cause his death

are essential requirements/ingredients for culpable homicide not amounting to

murder under Section 304 of the PC, but in the instant case no such ingredients

are fulfilled from the evidence collected by the prosecution. He further submits

that if the entire case of the prosecution is taken in toto, it does not travel beyond

the scope of Section 304-A of IPC, because, the act of the applicant is said to be

causing death by driving the vehicle in a high speed, would fall outside the

purview of commission of offence of culpable homicidal not amounting to murder,

therefore, framing of charge against the applicant under Section 304 IPC is

contrary to statutory provisions of law and the applicant is entitled to be

discharged from the said offence.

(6)

On the other hand, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State, while

supporting the charges framed by the Sessions Judge, would submit that the

manner, in which, the incident took place, offence of culpable homicide not

amounting to murder is made out against the applicant and the order impugned

does not call for any interference in the instant revision petition.

(7)

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of

criminal revision which contains copy of entire charge-sheet.

(8)

As per case of the prosecution, the incident took place on 1.3.2020 at 6

AM in the morning, which is not a time of rush on the road. As per statements of

3

eye witnesses, at the time of incident, deceased was returning back after

morning walk and when he was walking of his left side along the road, at the

same time, applicant/accused while driving the car at high speed, dashed the

deceased and dragged him knowingly up to some distance and due to injuries

sustained by him, he died on the spot itself.

(9)

The same issue as is in this case was involved in the case