Jharkhand High Court
Manoj Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 May, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1022 of 2004
-------
Manoj Kumar ..... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ..... ....Opposite Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Petitioner :Mr. Amit Kr. Choubey, Adv.
For the Opposite Party-State :Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, APP
.........
08/04.05.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties through
V.C.
2. This revision application is directed against the
judgment dated 9.8.2004 passed by learned Sessions
Judge, Gumla in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2004; whereby
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
30.4.2004 passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Gumla, in G.R.
No.779/2000 T.R. No.202 of 2004; whereby the petitioner
was convicted and sentenced to undergo two years
Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 304
(A) IPC and three months R.I. with a fine of Rs.500/- for the
offence under Section 279 IPC. In default of payment of fine
further sentence for three months; has been affirmed and
the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
3. The prosecution case in short is that on
20.10.2000 at about 5.15 P.M. son of the informant aged
about 6 years was playing in front of his house. In the
meantime a truck bearing No.BR1G 2102 driven by the
petitioner rashly and negligently dashed the son of the
informant who died on the spot.
On the basis of the written report, the instant
case was registered and after investigation police submitted
charge-sheet. Accordingly, charge was framed against the
petitioner for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried and finally he was convicted.
4. At the outset, Mr. Amit Kumar Choubey, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not
habitual offender and the allegation is not serious in
nature. Now the petitioner is aged about 49 years and he
also remained in custody for 31 days; as such, he is
confining his prayer only on the question of sentence and
since the petitioner is now middle aged person; sending
him back to jail at this stage even for short period will
hamper the entire family as well as his career ; as such the
sentence may be modified in lieu of fine.
5. Learned counsel for the State supported the
judgments and submits that there is no error in the finding
given by the courts below. As such, the conviction cannot
be set aside, however the sentence may be modified in lieu
of fine.
6. After going through the impugned judgment
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 2000
and about 22 years have elapsed and the petitioner must
have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 22 years. 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
and he also remained in custody for 31 days.
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 trial court and
upheld by the appellate court is, hereby, modified to the
extent that the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the
period already undergone, subject to the payment of fine of
Rs. 5,000/-.
10. It is made clear that petitioner shall pay the
aforesaid fine within a period of 4 months from today before
the court below, Gumla; failing which he shall serve rest of
the sentence as ordered by the learned Trial Court.
11. With the aforesaid observations, directions and
modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision
application is 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.)
Fahim/-
