Sita Ram Sah v. State of Jharkhand
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court Criminal Revision Bench modified the petitioner's sentence of imprisonment for offenses under IPC Sections 279 and 304A to the period already undergone, substituting it with a fine of Rs. 15,000 due to the lapse of 23 years.
What did the court decide?
The sentence of imprisonment was modified to the period already undergone upon payment of a fine of Rs. 15,000. The petitioner is discharged from bail bond liability.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No.915 of 2008
Sita Ram Sah ..… Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ruby Yadav, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P.
09/18.11.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 24.07.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Seraikela Kharswan in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2005, dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.04.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Seraikella in G.R. Case No. 193 of 1999, corresponding to T.R. No. 680 of 2005, whereby the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 279 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for one year under Section 304 A of the I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 05.05.1999, the father of the informant was on his way back from the market and when he was crossing the road a truck being driven by the petitioner rashly and negligently dashed him causing his instantaneous death at the spot. On the statement of the informant, F.I.R. was lodged.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should modify the sentence of the convicted petitioner given the lapse of 23 years.
Whether the petitioner should be discharged from bail bond liability after sentence modification.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Sita Ram Sah
- respondent
The State of Jharkhand
Coram
DEEPAK ROSHAN
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Jharkhand HC
- Decided on
- · November
- Registered
- Case no.
- Cr.Rev./915/2008
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court