Anirudh Paramanik @ Anirudh ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 1600 Jhar

                                         1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              Cr. Revision No. 824 of 2004
                                 ---------

Anirudh Paramanik @ Anirudh Vidyarthi ..... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. ..... Opposite Party

---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

     For the Petitioner      : Mr. A.K.Sahani, Advocate
     For the State           : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, APP
                                 ---------

05/Dated:   21st   April, 2022

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This criminal revision application is directed against

the judgment dated 15.05.2004, passed by learned

Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Khunti, in Cr. Appeal

No. 04 of 2003 affirming the judgment dated 13.12.2002

passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Khunti in

G.R. No. 606 of 1999; whereby the petitioner has been

convicted under Sections 279/304 (A) of the I.P.C. and has

been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under Section

304 (A) I.P.C and R.I. 3 months under Section 279 of the

I.P.C.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 03.12.1999

at 6.30 P.M. deceased Jarib Mahto, father of the informant

was returning from the house of Ramnarayan Mahto

situated at Singari. When deceased reached in front of the

house of Aganu Mahto then appellant was coming on bullet

motorcycle driving rashly and negligently and struck the

deceased who was injured and he was taken to Tamar for

treatment from where he was referred to Ranchi, but at

11.00 P.M. father of informant died.

4. At the outset, Mr. A.K.Sahani, learned counsel for

the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not a habitual

offender. The petitioner has also undergone 72 days

imprisonment and now the petitioner is an aged person. As

such, he is confining his prayer only on the question of

sentence as the petitioner is an aged person and sending

him back to jail at this stage even for short period will

hamper the entire family; as such the sentence may be

modified in lieu of fine.

5. Learned APP opposes the prayer of the petitioner and

submits that there is concurrent finding and there is no

error in the impugned judgments. As such, the conviction

cannot be set aside, however the sentence may be modified

in lieu of fine.

6. After going through the impugned judgments

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 finding of the courts 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 1999

and 22 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have

suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 22 years. The

petitioner also remained in custody for about 72 days and 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.

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 in lieu of fine.

9. Thus, the sentence passed by the Court below is,

hereby, further modified to the extent that the petitioner is

sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone,

subject to the payment of fine of Rs. 7.500/-.

10. It is made clear that the petitioner shall pay the

aforesaid fine of Rs. 7.500/- within a period of 4 months

from today before the court below, failing which he shall

serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned court

below.

11. With the aforesaid observations, directions and

modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision

application stands disposed of.

12. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of

his bail bond, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.

13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court

below and also to the petitioner through the officer-in-

charge of concerned police station.

14. Let the lower court record be sent to the court

concerned forthwith.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Amardeep/