Raju Yadav Alias Sikander Yadav Alias Sikandar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cri. Revision No. 764 of 2020

Raju Yadav @ Sikander Yadav @ Sikandar Yadav @ Sikander, aged about 39 years, son of Late Bisto Yadav, resident of Village Tekbathan, (Sangrampur), Post Office Mangalhat, Police Station Rajmahal, District Sahibganj

¶4

… …	Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶8

For the Petitioner	--- : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sinha, Advocte Ms. Pushapnjali Kumari, Advocate
For the State	: Ms. Anuradha Sahay, APP
For the Informant	: Mr. Tarun Kumar, Advocate ---

¶9

08/27^th August 2024

¶10

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

2. This revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 26.02.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2017 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal whereby the appeal has been dismissed. The petitioner has been convicted vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2017 passed in Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 14 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. No. 29 of 2008 subsequently T.R. No. 287 of 2017 by the learned Judicial magistrate, 1^st Class, Rajmahal. The trial court has convicted the petitioner for offence under Sections 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 279 of IPC and simple imprisonment for two years for offence under Section 304A of IPC. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

¶12

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his argument on the point of sentence.

¶13

1

¶14

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that so far as the sentence under Section 279 of IPC is concerned, the petitioner has already served the same in view of the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 19.02.2024 and the period of six months have already elapsed.

¶15

5. The learned counsel further submits that so far as the offence under Section 304A is concerned, the maximum sentence i.e. two years has been awarded to the petitioner.

¶16

6. The learned counsel submits that the incident had taken place on 25.01.2008 at 6:30 am on the national highway No. 80 when the informant’s daughter aged about 12 years was going to take tuition and one truck bearing Registration No. WB 65-4255 said to be driven by the petitioner negligently ran over the girl resulting in her death. The learned counsel has submitted that it has come in evidence that the girl was riding the bicycle on the national highway and on that morning the weather was foggy.

¶17

7. The learned counsel has submitted that about 16 years have elapsed from the date of the occurrence; the petitioner at present is about 43 years of age and the present case is the first offence of the petitioner. He submits that considering the entire facts and circumstances, the sentence be modified to some extent. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that the learned courts have given concurrent findings and a small girl of 12 years has expired. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the accident had admittedly taken place on a national highway at 6:30 am on 25.01.2008 when the victim girl aged about 12 years was going to take tuition. It has come on record that it was foggy weather when the accident had taken place, but the petitioner was driving the truck in rash and negligent manner on account of which the accident happened and the girl expired. On the basis of materials on record, it stood well-established that the petitioner was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner on a national highway on which the victim girl aged about 12 years was also riding a cycle and she expired due to the accident.

¶18

2

¶19

10. This Court finds that the accident is of January 2008 and more than 16 years have already elapsed from the date of the occurrence and that the petitioner is already in custody who is now aged about 43 years and the present offence is the first offence of the petitioner. This Court also finds that the petitioner has already served the sentence, so far as the offence under Section 279 of IPC is concerned. So far as the sentence under Section 304A of IPC is concerned, this Court finds that there is no minimum sentence prescribed under the said Section. It provides for punishment of maximum of two years or fine or both.

¶20

11. Considering the fact that the petitioner has faced the criminal case for a long time and this offence appears to be the first offence of the petitioner this Court is of the considered view that the sentence of the petitioner is required to be modified to some extent for the ends of justice.

¶21

12. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to one year for offence under Section 304A of IPC with a fine of Rs. 30,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the informant of the case who is the father of the victim girl.

¶22

13. The fine amount be deposited before the court concerned within a period of two months from today and upon deposit of the fine amount, the learned court is directed to ensure that the fine amount is remitted to the informant of the case upon due identification.

¶23

14. In case the fine amount is not deposited by the petitioner within the stipulated timeframe, the petitioner would serve the sentence as awarded by the learned court.

¶24

15. This petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid modification of sentence.

¶25

16. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.

¶26

17. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘email/FAX’.

¶27

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶28

Mukul

¶29

3

Raju Yadav Alias Sikander Yadav Alias Sikandar Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Yadav Alias Sikander Yadav Alias Sikandar Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alok Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Departmnet of Industries

Binod Kumar Jha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Narendra Prasad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through Vigilance

Dinesh Mishra Alias Dinesh Kumar Mishra Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Md Kaishar Alam Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Md Kaisar Alam Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.