Partly allowed

Benjamin Horo v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC19 Jan 2023Cr.Rev./288/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision against a conviction for negligent driving under sections 279 and 304-A IPC, the High Court sustained the conviction but modified the sentence to a fine of Rs. 10,000 considering the petitioner's age and time served.

What did the court decide?

Conviction sustained; sentence modified to a fine of Rs. 10,000 payable within four months; petitioner discharged from bail bond liability.

Benjamin Horo Vs State of Jharkhand — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No.288 of 2011

¶2

¶3

Benjamin Horo

¶4

Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶6

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Advocate

¶8

06/19.01.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

2. This criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 21.02.2011 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I, Khunti in Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2008, dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.05.2008, passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Khunti in G.R. Case No. 627 of 2005, corresponding to T.R. No. 311 of 2008, whereby the petitioner has been convicted under section 279 and 304-A of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months u/s 279 of the I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for two years under section 304-A of the I.P.C.. The sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 06.11.2005, the bus in which the informant was a passenger dashed a motorcycle killing the biker and the pillion rider at the spot. The two victims turned out to be the brother and neighbor of the informant. Petitioner was the driver of the bus.

¶10

4. At the outset, Mr. Ashish Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not habitual offender and the Petitioner remained in custody for about 92 days. As such, he has confined his prayer only on the question of sentence as the occurrence is of the year 2005 and the petitioner is now an aged person and sending him back to jail at this stage even for a short period will hamper the entire family; as such the sentence may be modified for the period already undergone.

¶11

-2-

¶12

5. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment and submits that there is no error in the finding given by the Trial Court. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside, however, the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine. 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 findings of the court below and as such the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court is, hereby, sustained.

¶13

7. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 2005 and 17 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have suffered the rigors of litigation for all these 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 92 days.

¶14

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.

¶15

9. Thus, the sentence passed by the court below 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.10,000/-. 10. The petitioner shall pay the aforesaid fine of Rs.10,000/- within a period of four months from today before the Secretary, D.L.S.A. Khunti, failing which he shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned trial court and upheld by appellate court.

¶16

-3-

¶17

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

¶18

12. With the aforesaid observations and modification in sentence only, the instant revision application is disposed of. 13. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the court below, the Secretary, D.L.S.A., Khunti and also to the petitioner through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station.

¶19

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

¶20

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶21

sm/

Benjamin Horo v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Benjamin Horo 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

Dasrath Bhuinya Vs State of Jharkhand

Md.Jamiluddin Ansari Jamil Ansari Md.Jamel Ans Vs State of Jharkhand

Baijnath Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand

Santosh Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Chandan Kumar Mishra Vs State of Jharkhand

Amarjit Singh Pappu 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

Dasrath Bhuinya Vs State of Jharkhand

Md.Jamiluddin Ansari  Jamil Ansari  Md.Jamel Ans Vs State of Jharkhand

Baijnath Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand

Santosh Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Chandan Kumar Mishra Vs State of Jharkhand

Amarjit Singh  Pappu Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Md.Jamiluddin Ansari Jamil Ansari Md.Jamel Ans Vs State of Jharkhand

Amarjit Singh Pappu Singh Vs State of Jharkhand