Partly allowed

Kailash Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC13 Apr 2022Cr.Rev./360/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the Single Judge sustained the conviction of the petitioner for offenses under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC but modified the sentence, sentencing him to a fine of Rs. 7500 instead of immediate imprisonment, given the elapsed time and lack of cruelty.

What did the court decide?

The sentence was modified to a fine of Rs. 7500, subject to which the petitioner is discharged from bail obligations. In default, imprisonment shall be served.

Kailash Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Revision No. 360 of 2004

Kailash Mahto

….. …. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand. ….. ….Opposite Party

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶10

¶11

For the Petitioner :Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Adv. For the Opposite Party-State :Mr. Hatim, APP

¶12

05/13.04.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 19.2.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Bermo at Tenughat in Criminal Appeal No.49 of 2000 / 29 of 2003; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.4.2000 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat, corresponding to G.R. No.1000/97, in T.R. No.549 of 2000; whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo six months R.I. for the offence under Section 279 and two years R.I. for the offence under Section 304 (A) IPC; has been affirmed and sentence under Sections 337 and 338 of the IPC has been set aside and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

¶14

3. The prosecution case in short is that on 13.12.1997 while the informant was returning to his home after finishing his duty by cycle, he saw a dumper coming rashly from Bermo side. He took his cycle on the side of the road but unfortunately the vehicle hit the informant due to which his both legs were crushed severely. After the occurrence the driver of the dumper was trying to flee away but due to crowd the driver could not fled away.

¶15

On the basis of the said farybeyan the instant case was registered and after investigation police submitted charge-sheet. Accordingly, charge was framed against the petitioner for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and finally he was convicted.

¶16

¶17

4. At the outset, Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not habitual offender and the allegation is not serious in nature. Now the petitioner is aged about 52 years and he also remained in custody for 127 days; as such, he is confining his prayer only on the question of sentence and since the petitioner is now a middle aged person; sending him back to jail at this stage even for short period will hamper the entire family as well as his career; as such the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.

¶18

5. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgments and submits that there is concurrent findings and there is no error in the findings given by the courts below. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside, however the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.

¶19

6. After going through the impugned judgment 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.

¶20

7. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1997 and about 24 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 24 years. 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 and he also remained in custody for 127 days.

¶21

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.

¶22

¶23

9. Thus, the sentence passed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court is, hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone, subject to the payment of fine of Rs. 7500/-.

¶24

10 . It is made clear that petitioner shall pay the aforesaid fine within a period of 4 months from today before the court below, Bermo at Tegnughat; failing which he shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the Trial Court.

¶25

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

¶26

12. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bond, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.

¶27

13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below and also to the petitioner through the officerin-charge of concerned police station.

¶28

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

¶29

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶30

Fahim /-

Kailash Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Mahto 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

Suresh Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sohil Yadav And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Narayan Mahato And Anr. 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