Partly allowed¶10

Krishnadeo Yadav v. State of Jharkhand through Pramod Kumar Mandal

Jharkhand HC20 Jun 2025Cr.Rev./932/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sentence modification to period already undergone; Sections 279 and 304A IPC; rash/negligent driving causing death of 12-year-old boy; aged and ailing convict (75 years); Lok Adalat compensation Rs. 70,000/- paid to victim's parents; conviction affirmed, sentence reduced; Cr. Revision No. 932 of 2015; Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; Arun Kumar Rai, J.; Dumka; Saraiyahat P.S. Case No. 17/09; G.R. Case No. 96/2009; Criminal Appeal No. 139/2010; partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Sections 279 and 304A IPC affirmed; sentence modified to the period already undergone (3 months and 12 days in custody). ¶10

Krishnadeo Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand through Pramod Kumar Mandal — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Conviction under Sections 279 and 304A IPC affirmed; sentence modified to the period already undergone (3 months and 12 days in custody).

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment of conviction of the revisionist under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC, as affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, should be assailed or stands affirmed. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

The judgment dated 27.02.2015 passed by the District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Dumka in Criminal Appeal No. 139/2010 qua guilt of the revisionist under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC is affirmed.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Ends of justice would be met by sentencing the revisionist under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC to the period already undergone (3 months and 12 days), thereby modifying the earlier sentences of R.I. 6 months and R.I. 2 years.

¶9

Key takeaways

Considering that the revisionist is 75 years of age, compensation has already been received by the parents of the deceased, and he has faced the agony of trial for almost 15 years, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the revisionist behind the bar at this stage.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Arun Kumar Rai, J.), Cr. Revision No. 932 of 2015, Order No. 18 dated 20th June, 2025: The revisionist, aged 75 years, did not challenge his conviction under Sections 279 and 304A IPC (death of a 12-year-old boy in an accident caused by truck No. HP 20 1281 driven by him; Saraiyahat P.S. Case No. 17/09; G.R. Case No. 96/2009; convicted on 28.09.2010 to R.I. 6 months and R.I. 2 years concurrent, affirmed by District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Dumka in Criminal Appeal No. 139/2010 on 27.02.2015). The Court affirmed the appellate judgment qua guilt but modified the sentence to the period already undergone (3 months and 12 days), being guided by the revisionist's age and infirmity, the Rs. 70,000/- Lok Adalat compensation (award dated 24.08.2011, Title Claim Suit No. 24 of 2009) already received by the deceased's parents, and the nearly 15 years of trial endured. Criminal Revision partly allowed.

¶1

2025:JHHC:16238

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Revision No. 932 of 2015

¶4

Krishnadeo Yadav, S/o late Ajabi Yadav, Resident of village- Baribishar, P.O.&P.S. Barahat, District- Banka(Bihar) … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Jharkhand through Pramod Kumar Mandal, S/o Late Ramu Mandal, Village- Barka Pathar, P.O.&P.S. Saraiyahat District- Dumka

¶7

… Opposite Party

¶8

----------

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

¶10

-------

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kr. Lall, Advocate : Mr. Shiwam Lath, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P.

¶12

---------

¶13

Order No.18/ Dated 20^th June, 2025

¶14

1. Learned counsel for the revisionist started his argument by making submission that revisionist does not want to assail the judgment of conviction under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC, but he only confines his argument on the point of sentence awarded by learned Magistrate and affirmed by learned Appellate Court. He further pointed out that vide judgment and order of sentence dated 28^th September, 2010, revisionist has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months for offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 304A of IPC.

¶15

2. It has also been urged on behalf of the revisionist that revisionist is 75 years of age and ailing person. Apart from that, it has also been brought on record by way of giving certified copy of award of Lok Adalat dated 24.08.2011 and other orders in the motor accident claim case being, Title Claim Suit No. 24 of 2009 in which matter was settled for Rs. 70,000/- and father and mother of the deceased boy has already received Rs. 70,000/-. Certified copy of order dated

¶16

2025:JHHC:16238

¶17

24.08.2011, showing that the payment of compensation of Rs.70,000/- has already been paid to the deceased, is taken on record.

¶18

3. He further pointed out that no purpose would be served if the revisionist be sent behind the bar.

¶19

4. It has also been pointed out that he is totally dependent upon his son and unable to move.

¶20

5. Upon aforesaid premise, prayer has been made that the sentence awarded by learned Magistrate and affirmed by learned Sessions Court be modified, as sentence already undergone because revisionist has already spent 3 months and 12 days in the jail.

¶21

6. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed modification of sentence awarded to the revisionist on the premise that 12 years’ boy has died in the road accident and both the courts have concurrently found revisionist guilty.

¶22

7. Perusal of record transpires that 12 years’ boy met with an accident and died by a truck bearing Registration No. HP 20 1281 which was being driven by this revisionist and for the said act Saraiyahat P.S. Case No. 17/09 registered under Sections 279/304A of IPC. After trial, revisionist vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.09.2010 passed by J.M. 1^st Class, Dumka in Saraiyahat P.S. Case No 17/09, G.R. Case No. 96/2009 has been convicted under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months under Section 279 of IPC and R.I. for 2 years under Section 304A of IPC and both the sentences shall directed to be run concurrently. Above said judgment and order of sentence has been affirmed by District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Dumka in Criminal Appeal No. 139 /2010 vide judgment dated 27.02.2015. Custody report sent by Jail Superintendent, Dumka reveals that petitioner has undergone 3 months and 12 days in the custody in the present case.

¶23

8. Considering the fact that the petitioner is 75 years of age and compensation has already been received by parents of deceased and

¶24

¶25

2025:JHHC:16238

¶26

revisionist has faced the agony of trial for almost 15 years, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the revisionist behind the bar at this stage.

¶27

9. Therefore, judgment dated 27.02.2015 passed by the District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Dumka in Criminal Appeal No. 139/2010 qua guilt of revisionist under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC is hereby affirmed. But, this Court is of considered view that sentence ought to be modified under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. Ends of justice would be met if the revisionist is sentenced under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC to the period already undergone.

¶28

10. This Criminal Revision is partly allowed in view of aforesaid modification of sentence.

¶29

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶30

R.K./Suman

¶31

Krishnadeo Yadav v. State of Jharkhand through Pramod Kumar Mandal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnadeo Yadav v. State of Jharkhand through Pramod Kumar Mandal

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

Tata Motors Ltd. through Its Deputy General Manager Legal Namely Shri Rajesh Kumar Das Vs Taposhi Paul and Ors.

Ashraf Mian Alias Ashraf Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anil Bhuiyan Alias Anil Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kiran Devi And Ors. Vs Shri Binod Singh And Ors.

Binima Prasad and Anr. Vs Tourism

Srihari Mahato Hari Mahato Vs State of Jharkhand