Jharkhand High Court
Sanjay Kujur vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 May, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 996 of 2004
-------
Sanjay Kujur ..... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ..... ....Opposite Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Petitioner :Mr. A. K. Das, Adv.
For the Opposite Party-State : APP
.........
05/04.05.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties through
V.C.
2. This revision application is directed against the
judgment dated 28.7.2004 passed by learned 1st Additional
Sessions Judge, Gumla in Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2002;
whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 14.8.2002 passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Gumla, in
G.R. No.637/1996 T.R. No.325 of 2002; 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. for the offence under
Section 279 IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for two years
for the offence under Section 338 IPC and ordered that all
the sentences shall run concurrently; has been affirmed
and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
3. The prosecution case in short is that on
10.9.1996 at about 10.00 A.M. the informant boarded on a
bus bearing No.BR 14(H) 9959 at Sisai and was going to
Gumla. He further alleged that the bus was over crowded
and the driver of the bus was driving the bus rashly and
negligently and in course of overtaking the bus fell down in
a ditch of 50 yard as a result two passengers died on the
spot and the informant along with several other passengers
received several serious injuries.
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. A. K. Das, 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 52 years and he also remained
in custody for 66 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 1996
and about 26 years have elapsed and the petitioner must
have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 26 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 66 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. 7,500/-.
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/-
