Partly allowed

Anirudh Parmanik Anirudh Vidyarthi v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC21 Apr 2022Cr.Rev./824/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision regarding conviction for rash driving causing death, the High Court of Jharkhand upheld the conviction but modified the sentence to a fine of Rs. 7,500/- considering the 22-year delay.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner sentenced to undergo period already undergone subject to payment of fine of Rs. 7,500/- within 4 months; discharge from bail bond.

Anirudh Parmanik Anirudh Vidyarthi Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Revision No. 824 of 2004

¶4

¶5

Anirudh Paramanik @ Anirudh Vidyarthi

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶10

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Sahani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, APP ---------

¶12

05/Dated: 21^st April, 2022

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

2. This criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 15.05.2004, passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Khunti, in Cr. Appeal No. 04 of 2003 affirming the judgment dated 13.12.2002 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Khunti in G.R. No. 606 of 1999; whereby the petitioner has been convicted under Sections 279/304 (A) of the I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 304 (A) I.P.C and R.I. 3 months under Section 279 of the I.P.C.

¶15

3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 03.12.1999 at 6.30 P.M. deceased Jarib Mahto, father of the informant was returning from the house of Ramnarayan Mahto situated at Singari. When deceased reached in front of the house of Aganu Mahto then appellant was coming on bullet motorcycle driving rashly and negligently and struck the deceased who was injured and he was taken to Tamar for

¶16

¶17

treatment from where he was referred to Ranchi, but at 11.00 P.M. father of informant died.

¶18

4. At the outset, Mr. A.K.Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not a habitual offender. The petitioner has also undergone 72 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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

¶22

7. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1999 and 22 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 22 years. The petitioner also remained in custody for about 72 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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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. 7.500/-.

¶25

10. It is made clear that the petitioner shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs. 7.500/- within a period of 4 months from today before the court below, failing which he shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned court below.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶32

Amardeep/

Anirudh Parmanik Anirudh Vidyarthi v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anirudh Parmanik Anirudh Vidyarthi 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

Ram Brichh Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Niwaran Mandal Vs State of Jharkhand

Sehikh Sakail Ahmad Sakil Ahmad Vs State of Jharkhand

Madan Lal Rawani Vs State of Jharkhand

Bala Devi Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Pradeep Kumar Sah Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

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

Ram Brichh Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Niwaran Mandal Vs State of Jharkhand

Sehikh Sakail Ahmad  Sakil Ahmad Vs State of Jharkhand

Madan Lal Rawani Vs State of Jharkhand

Bala Devi Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Pradeep Kumar Sah Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Sehikh Sakail Ahmad Sakil Ahmad Vs State of Jharkhand