Imamuddin Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand

2. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 30.05.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Garhwa in Cr. Appeal No.50 of 2012, whereby and whereunder the

¶20

Cr. Revision No.1338 of 2016

¶21

Page | 1

¶22

2026:JHHC:19304

¶23

judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court in G.R. Case No. 623 of 2000 arising out of Garhwa P.S. Case No.177 of 2000, the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 304A of the I.P.C. has been upheld.

¶24

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal as emerging from the fardbeyan of the informant is that on 19.09.2000 at about 09:30 a.m., the grandson of the informant, namely Din Dayal Upadhyay, had gone to attend Shanti Niketan Vidyalay, Belchampa. It is alleged that at about 04:00 p.m., after closure of the school, while the informant along with his grandson was returning home and had crossed the road, a jeep bearing registration No. BR-13P-0542, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came and dashed against the child standing on the flank of the pitch road. Due to the impact, the child sustained grievous injuries and fell unconscious on the ground. He was immediately taken to Sadar Hospital, Garhwa for treatment, where the attending doctor declared him dead. It is further alleged that the driver of the offending vehicle was apprehended by the villagers at the spot.

¶25

Cr. Revision No.1338 of 2016

¶26

Page | 2

¶27

2026:JHHC:19304

¶28

On the basis of above fardbeyan, Garhwa P.S. Case No. 177 of 2000 was registered for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the I.P.C.

¶29

4. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences and accordingly, cognizance was taken and subsequently, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the petitioner which was read over and explained to him for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶30

5. In the course of trial, altogether eleven witnesses were examined and several documentary evidences were also adduced by the prosecution.

¶31

6. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence.

¶32

7. After conclusion of trial, judgment and order of conviction and sentence as stated above was passed which was affirmed in Cr. Appeal No.50 of 2012, has been assailed in this revision.

¶33

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner without touching the merits of the judgment has confined himself towards the quantum of sentence. The report has also been submitted by

¶34

Cr. Revision No.1338 of 2016

¶35

Page | 3

¶36

2026:JHHC:19304

¶37

D.L.S.A., Garhwa dated 28.02.2025 that the compensation case was filed under Motor Vehicles Act and the compensation amount has also been received by the family members of victim. It is further submitted that out of one year sentence of imprisonment, the petitioner has undergone about six months' imprisonment and has sufficiently been punished for his guilt and the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the imprisonment already undergone.

¶38

9. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has defended the impugned judgment on merits. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, no serious objection has been raised.

¶39

10. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order along with the record of the case in the light of rival contentions of the learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶40

11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, genesis and manner of occurrence under which the offence was committed by petitioner, the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the I.P.C.

¶41

passed by the learned Trial Court is upheld but so far as sentence is concerned, the incident is of the year 2000 and

¶42

Cr. Revision No.1338 of 2016

¶43

Page | 4

¶44

2026:JHHC:19304

¶45

more than two and a half decades have been elapsed and out of one years' imprisonment, he has already undergone about six months in custody, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner again in jail for sustaining the rest of the imprisonment. Therefore, sentence is reduced from one year of R.I. to imprisonment already undergone by him.

¶46

12. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above.

¶47

13. The petitioner is on bail, hence, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond. The sureties are also discharged.

¶48

14. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶49

15. I take this opportunity to appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. Aman Dayal Singh, learned Amicus Curiae and direct the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to extend the stipulated fee as per notification of High Court Legal Services Committee to learned Amicus Curiae , within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶50

16. Office is directed to ensure that a copy of this order is

¶51

served upon Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee.

¶52

Cr. Revision No.1338 of 2016

¶53

Page | 5

¶54

2026:JHHC:19304

¶55

17. Let a copy of this order along with Trial Court record be sent back immediately to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful.