Dhananjay Dutta Vs the State of Jharkhand

2025:JHHC:17482

THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 985 of 2015

Dhananjay Dutta @ Dhananjoy Dutta, S/o late Jotilal Dutta, resident of village Maheshpur, P.O. & P.S. Kendra, District-Purulia, West Bengal

¶4

Versus The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party

¶5

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, APP

¶8

18/ 02^nd July, 2025

¶9

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner started his argument by making submission that petitioner wants to assail only order of sentence dated 08.06.2015 passed by learned Magistrate in G.R. Case No. 356 of 2012, whereby the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two months for the offence U/s 279 of I.P.C., R.I. for six months for the offence U/s 338 of I.P.C. and R.I. for one year alongwith fine of Rs. 3,000/- for the offence U/s 304(A) of I.P.C. and affirmed by the appellate court vide order dated 20.07.2015 in Criminal Appeal No.39 of 2015. He further submitted that petitioner is more than 50 years of age and has to look after his old parent, wife and children also and apart from petitioner, no one is available in the family to look after them. He further urged that petitioner has faced agony of criminal prosecution for more than 13 years. He further pointed out that petitioner is in judicial custody for 16 days in the present case and for ends of justice, sentence awarded to petitioner may be modified as “already undergone”.

¶10

2. Learned APP for the State submitted that there is concurrent finding of learned Magistrate as well as appellate court regarding guilt of the accused. There is no material available on record which could impel this Court to take a different view from that of the appellate court, as far as guilt of petitioner, is concerned. As far as, sentence part is concerned, learned APP objected the prayer of petitioner and submitted that sentence should be remained what has been awarded by the learned Magistrate & affirmed by the learned appellate court.

¶11

¶12

2025:JHHC:17482

¶13

3. Heard and perused the materials available on record.

¶14

4. Perusal of record transpires that in the present case, FIR has been got registered on the fardbeyan dated 03.08.2012 of Sukhmati Bodra (P.W.-4) who stated therein that she alongwith her husband were returning home from Chakradharpur by bicycle after purchasing some household articles and medicines and at about 16:00 hours, when they reached near Kharsawan More, one Chanchal Bus bearing registration no. JH 01M 2770 driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed her husband on account of which her husband sustained severe injuries and he succumbed to injury on the spot. The petitioner is said to be the driver of the offending vehicle (Chanchal Bus).

¶15

5. On the basis of above said fardbeyan, an FIR being, Muffasil P.S. Case No. 70 of 2012 under Sections 279/337/338/304(A) of I.P.C. has been got registered. After filing of chargesheet against petitioner, trial before learned Magistrate started and the learned Magistrate after appreciating the evidence found petitioner guilty under Sections 279/338/304(A) of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two months for the offence U/s 279 of I.P.C., R.I. for six months for the offence U/s 338 of I.P.C. and R.I. for one year alongwith fine of Rs. 3,000/- for the offence U/s 304(A) of I.P.C.

¶16

6. The petitioner preferred an appeal, being Criminal Appeal No.39 of 2015 before Sessions Judge, but same was dismissed vide judgment dated 20.07.2015.

¶17

7. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the copy of application filed by the dependants of the deceased Ramrai Bodra for compensation filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act as well as award dated 21.02.2014, showing compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,90,000/- has been awarded to the dependents of deceased. These two aforesaid documents kept on record.

¶18

8. Considering the fact, that compensation amount has already been disbursed to dependants of deceased, petitioner has faced agony of trial for more than 13 years and is only the bread winner of family which includes his parent also, this Court is of considered view that end of justice would be met, if the sentence awarded to petitioner by learned

¶19

¶20

2025:JHHC:17482

¶21

Magistrate in G.R. Case No. 356 of 2012 vide order dated 08.06.2015 and affirmed by the learned appellate court in Criminal Appeal No.39 of 2015 vide order dated 20.07.2015 is modified and petitioner is sentenced to period already undergone.

¶22

9. Criminal Revision No. 985 of 2015 is partly allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶23

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶24

Rajnish/R.K.

¶25

Dhananjay Dutta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhananjay Dutta 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

Ravi Mahato Vs State of Jharkhand

Bhola Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Hansda Vs State of Jharkhand

Ramchandra Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner Koderma

M/S Sunder Transport Represented through Its Manager Vijay Singh Vs Smt.Seema Kaur And Ors.

Sahu Gagrai Vs the State of Jharkhand