Jurisdiction exercised in criminal revision; conviction upheld, but sentence modified to enforce only period already undergone and petitioner discharged from bail bond liability due to age, elapsed time, and partial custody.
Sentence modified to period already undergone; petitioner discharged from liability of bail bond.
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.358 of 2009
Pawan Kumar Nag ..… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp.Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Petitioner : Mr. D.C. Mishra, Advocate For the Opp.Party : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.
06/03.01.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 13.02.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka (Santhal Pargana) in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2009, dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment of conviction and modifying the order of sentence dated 22.12.2008, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dumka in G.R. Case No. 468 of 2002, corresponding to T.R. Case No. 17 of 2008, whereby the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for offences punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C., and rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence under section 279 I.P.C. and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
The learned appellate court has sustained the conviction but modified the sentence to the extent that petitioner be sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 279 I.P.C. and simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 304 A I.P.C. and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report dated 26.05.2002, in brief is that due to rash and negligent driving by the petitioner, the bus he was driving came in contact with live electric wire resulting in death of two persons sitting on the roof of the bus due to electrocution while the other passengers suffered injuries. It is further alleged that the petitioner fled away.
-2-
4. At the outset, Mr. D.C. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not a habitual offender and he also remained in custody for about 70 days. As such, he has confined his prayer only on the question of sentence as the occurrence is of the year 2002 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.
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.
7. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is apparent from record that the incident is of the year 2002 and 20 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 about 70 days.
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 for the period already undergone.
-3-
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. 10. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bond.
11. With the aforesaid observations and modification in sentence only, the instant revision application is disposed of.
12. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the court below and also to the petitioner through the officer-in-charge of concerned police station.
13. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
sm/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should modify the sentence in a criminal revision appeal where a long delay has elapsed since the offence and the petitioner has already undergone custody.
Whether the petitioner should be discharged from liability of his bail bond after sentence modification.
Pawan Kumar Nag
The State of Jharkhand
DEEPAK ROSHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
