Partly allowed

Tipu Singh v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC22 Apr 2022Cr.Rev./700/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision filed challenging conviction and sentence under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC for causing death by accident in 1994. Court sustained conviction but modified sentence to credit time already undergone given 27-year delay.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to credit time already undergone; petitioner discharged from bail bond liability and lower record sent back.

Tipu Singh Vs State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 700 of 2004

¶3

Tipu Singh ….. Petitioner

¶4

Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party

¶5

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶7

¶8

Through Video Conferencing For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, APP

¶9

¶10

07/ 22.04.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

2. The instant criminal revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.05.2004, passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla, in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2000; whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 08.05.2000 , passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gumla passed in G.R. No.726 of 1994, T.R. No.387 of 2000, whereby petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for the period of three months under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year under Section 304 (A) of the Indian Penal Code and it has been further ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently, has been sustained.

¶12

3. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of Jehloo Sahu. According to fardbeyan, on 10.11.94 at 12.00 noon the informant had come to Gumla post office for necessary work. On the same day at about 1.00 P.M. he had boarded Gupta Bus

¶13

¶14

near Sisai Road Pond for going to his home. His cousin brother Mahendra Sahu had also boarded the same bus for going to his home who had come to purchase potato seeds. He was seated on the roof of the bus. At about 1.10 P.M, Gupta bus started from bus stand and when the bus was going in Palkot road, occurrence took place near Munshi lodge beside mango tree. The passengers seated on the roof of the Bus raised alarm that one man has fallen down from the bus so bus was stopped at some distance. When the bus stopped, the informant came out and found that his cousin brother Mahendra Sahu s/o Jagdeo Sahu of village Koleng Nawadih P.S. Palkot, District Gumla is lying on the Pakki Road in injured condition and was also restless. The injured was brought to Sadar Hospital, Gumla and in course of treatment Mahendra Sahu died.

¶15

Fardbeyan of the informant was recorded by S.I., B. Sahu of Gumla P.S. on the same day at 3.00P.M. at Sadar Hospital, Gumla. On the basis of this fardbeyan present case was registered and investigated. In course of investigation, police got performed the postmortem of the dead body of Mahendra Sahu and got the bus examined by M.V.I. After completing investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the driver of the Bus-Tipu Singh and on 16.12.1994 cognizance was taken in this case by the then CJM.

¶16

4. Mr. A. K. Chaturvedy, learned counsel for the

¶17

¶18

petitioner submits that order passed by the learned trial court is perverse in nature, inasmuch as, no postmortem report has been exhibited nor the death has been proved as the death is only due to accident. Doctor has also not been examined. He contended that when the death is not proved by the deposition of any expert then how the person can be convicted under the charge of accident. Alternatively, he submits that since the petitioner remained in custody for 30 days and did not misuse the privilege of bail as such, the sentence may be modified for the period already undergone.

¶19

5. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment and submits that there is no error in the findings given by the trial Court. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside.

¶20

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned judgments including the lower courts records and keeping in mind the alternative submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the scope of revisional 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.

¶21

7. So far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1994 and 27 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of

¶22

¶23

litigation for the last 27 years. Further, the petitioner remained in custody for about 30 days and during entire period of bail he never misused the privilege of bail. Further, the incident does not reflect any cruelty on the part of the petitioner or any mental depravity.

¶24

8. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner back to prison.

¶25

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.

¶26

10. With the aforesaid observation, direction, the instant criminal revision application stands disposed of.

¶27

11. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bond.

¶28

12. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the court below.

¶29

13. Let the lower court record be sent back to the court

¶30

concerned forthwith.

¶31

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶32

Pramanik/

Tipu Singh v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tipu Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madan Lal Rawani Vs State of Jharkhand

Anirudh Parmanik Anirudh Vidyarthi Vs State of Jharkhand

Bala Devi Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jai Krishan Mahto And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Nand Kishore Panjiyara And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Sant Bahadur Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Madan Lal Rawani Vs State of Jharkhand

Anirudh Parmanik  Anirudh Vidyarthi Vs State of Jharkhand

Bala Devi Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jai Krishan Mahto And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Nand Kishore Panjiyara And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Sant Bahadur Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Anirudh Parmanik Anirudh Vidyarthi Vs State of Jharkhand