Partly allowed

Salim Ansari v. State of Jharkhand Th.Gujar

Jharkhand HC19 Apr 2022Cr.Rev./3/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision against the confirmed conviction and sentence for negligent death caused by a motor accident, the High Court upheld the conviction but exercised its revisional jurisdiction to modify the sentence. Considering the lapse of 23 years and the petitioner's age, the court ordered discharge from bail liability conditioned on payment of a fine.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- within three months to satisfy the sentence; otherwise, the original sentence would be executed. The petitioner was discharged from bail liabil

Salim Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand Th.Gujar — Motor Accident Claims | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 03 of 2004

¶3

Salim Ansari ..… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Jharkhand. ..... Opposite Party

¶6

--------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahavir Pd. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Ms. Snehlika Bhagat, APP

¶8

05/Dated: 19^th April, 2022

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

2. This criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 06.11.2003, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-1^st , Fast Track Court, Giridih in in Cr. Appeal No. 65 of 2003; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.03.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Giridih in G.R. Case No. 1407 of 1998 (T.R. No. 327 of 2003) convicting the petitioner under Sections 304 A, 279 and 337 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence under Section 304 A I.P.C, R.I. of 2 months and a fine of Rs. 200/- for offence under Section 279 I.P.C. and also R.I. of 2 months and fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence under Section 337 of I.P.C. and in default of fine will have to undergo further S.I. of 2 months for offence under Section 304(A) IPC, 15 days for the offence under Section 279 IPC and 15 days for the offence under Section 337 of I.P.C. and ordered to run the sentence concurrently has been affirmed.

¶11

-2-

¶12

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.08.98 at 4.30 P.M. the informant was going from Pogdarback to Khakikala, after discharging his duty. When he reached near the Khakikala pulia saw that a red colour scooter was coming from south and a truck was coming from north. The driver of the said truck was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and dashed the aforesaid scooter. It is alleged that the driver of Scooter fell down and one Baldeo Rajak, who was sitting on the scooter behind the driver, died on the spot. The injured was sent to Bokaro for treatment.

¶13

On the basis of the fardbeyan, Nimiaghat P.S. Case No. 75/98 dated 11.08.98 under Sections 304A, 337 and 279 I.P.C. was registered against the driver of BR-094630 and formal F.I.R was lodged.

¶14

4. At the outset, Mahavir Pd. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent person and the petitioner was all along on bail. He further submits that during the pendency of appeal he has never misused the privilege of bail. The petitioner has also undergone 85 days imprisonment and now the petitioner is an aged person. As such, he is confining his prayer only on the question of sentence as the petitioner is an aged person and sending him back to jail at this stage even for short period will hamper the entire family; as such the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.

¶15

- 3-

¶16

5. Learned APP opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that there is concurrent finding and there is no error in the impugned judgments. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside, however the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.

¶17

6. After going through the impugned judgments including the lower court records and keeping in mind the limited submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the scope of revision jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of the courts below and as such the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby, sustained.

¶18

7. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1998 and 23 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 23 years. The petitioner also remained in custody for about 85 days and it is not stated that the petitioner has ever misused the privilege of bail. Further, the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part of the petitioner or any mental depravity. 8. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner/convict back to prison; rather interest of justice would be sufficed if the sentence is modified in lieu of fine.

¶19

-4-

¶20

9. Thus, the sentence passed by the Court below is, hereby, further modified to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone, subject to the payment of fine of Rs. 10000/-.

¶21

10. It is made clear that the petitioner shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.10000/- within a period of 3 months from today before the court below, failing which he shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned court below.

¶22

11. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision application stands disposed of.

¶23

12. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bond, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition. 13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the courts below and also to the petitioner through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station.

¶24

14. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.

¶25

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶26

Amardeep/

Salim Ansari v. State of Jharkhand Th.Gujar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salim Ansari v. State of Jharkhand Th.Gujar

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

Kailash Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand

Chando Rai And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Chemo Kharia Vs State of Jharkhand

Jayanti Kundu D/O Late Madan Chandra Day and W/O Sri Nirup Kumdu Vs State of Bihar

Niranjan Minz Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ram Brichh Singh Vs State of Jharkhand