Partly allowed

Nitesh Kumar Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC29 Oct 2018Cr.Rev./122/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court sustained the conviction of the petitioner for offences under Sections 279/337 of the IPC regarding rash driving. The court modified the sentence by remitting the period of simple imprisonment to the time already undergone in custody, as the maximum sentence was six months.

What did the court decide?

The judgment affirming conviction and sentence was upheld, but the sentence of simple imprisonment was modified to the period already undergone by the petitioner in custody.

Nitesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Criminal Revision No. 122 of 2009

¶2

Against the judgment dated 09.01.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2008 affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09.07.2008 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Dumka in Saraiyahat P. S. Case No. 155 of 2003.

Nitesh Kumar Yadav

Versus

1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Shanti Devi … … Opposite Parties --For the Petitioner : None For the Opposite Party No. 1 : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party No. 2 : None

¶7

Present:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶9

¶10

By Court: No one appears for the petitioner. However, Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. is present. No one appears for the opposite party also.

¶11

This application is directed against the judgment dated 09.01.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09.07.2008 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Dumka in Saraiyahat P. S. Case No. 155 of 2003 corresponding to G. R. No. 1051 of 2003 by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Sections 279/337 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for 6 months has been affirmed.

¶12

The prosecution story in brief is that on 06.10.2003 when the informant was standing in front of his house at about 4:00 AM, a motorcycle being driven rashly and negligently dashed against him as a result of which she fell down and sustained injuries. On regaining consciousness at Sadar Hospital, Dumka, she has given the registration no. of motor-cycle as JH04A/0681. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Saraiyahat P. S. Case No. 155 of 2003 was instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of I.P.C. to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶13

In course of trial, 4 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 1 – Manoj Brahm is the eye-witness of the occurrence who has stated that while he was near the place of occurrence, a Yamaha motor-cycle being driven rashly by the petitioner has dashed against

¶14

-2-

¶15

Shanti Devi on account of which she had fallen down and sustained injuries. He has further stated that the registration no. of the motor-cycle is JH04/0681 and the name of the motor-cycle driver is Nitesh Yadav (petitioner). He has also stated that he had taken Shanti Devi to Dumka Sadar Hospital for treatment. In cross-examination he has stated that when he reached the place of occurrence, he has seen Shanti Devi and the petitioner having fallen down on the road. P.W. 2 – Puroshattam Brahm is the husband of the informant who is a hearsay witness. This witness has reached Sadar Hospital, Dumka on getting telephonic information about the accident. P.W. 3 – Trilochan Brahm has also deposed that at the time of the accident, he was sitting at the tea-shop when he had seen Shanti Devi being dashed against the motor-cycle. This witness has not been cross-examined by the defence. P.W. 4 – Shanti Devi is the informant who has stated about the motor-cycle having dashed against her which led her suffering several injuries.

¶16

The evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 has clearly supported the manner of occurrence and the involvement of the petitioner as the rider of the motor-cycle bearing registration no. JH04A/0681 which resulted in injuries having been suffered by P.W. 4. P.W. 4 in her evidence has supported the prosecution case as narrated by her in the Fard Beyan and since the prosecution evidence are corroborative and consistent with each other, the learned trial court had rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 279/337 of I.P.C. The same is hereby sustained.

¶17

However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner, it appears that the maximum sentence imposed upon the petitioner is 6 months Simple Imprisonment and the petitioner has also remained in custody for some time. On consideration of the above, the period of sentence is modified to the period already undergone by the petitioner in custody.

¶18

This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the sentence.

¶19

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶20

Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi
The 29th day of October, 2018
 R.Shekhar/NAFR/Cp.3

Nitesh Kumar Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitesh Kumar Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Birendra Singh Alias Ravindra Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Haider Mia Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ram Karan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Md.Niyamuddin Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand

S K Sufyan Alias MD Sufyan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Moti Mahto Alias Moti Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand