Jharkhand High Court
Shankar Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No.541 of 2009
--------
Shankar Mahto ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
..... Opp. Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mitul Kumar, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Ravi Prakash, A.P.P.
---------
04/21.09.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This criminal revision application is directed
against the judgment dated 14.05.2009 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Dumka in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2009,
dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 02.03.2009 passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dumka in G.R.
Case No. 966 of 2003, corresponding to T.R. No. 354 of 2009,
whereby the petitioner has been convicted under section 279
and 304 A I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo S.I. of one
year along with fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 304 A I.P.C.
and S.I. of three months u/s 279 I.P.C. in default of payment
of fine further imprisonment for one month S.I. both
sentences are directed to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 25.09.2003
at about 3-3.15 p.m. one Debu Dehri, with whom the
informant went to watch a football match was crushed to
instantaneous death by a Bus driven very rashly and
negligently. Fardbayan was recorded on the same day on the
basis of which Gopikander P.S. Case No. 16/2003 under
Section 279, 304 A I.P.C. was registered.
4. At the outset, Mr. Mitul Kumar, learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not a habitual
offender. The Petitioner also remained in custody for about 30
days. As such, he has confined his prayer only on the
question of sentence as the occurrence is of the year 2003
and the petitioner is now an aged person and sending him
back to jail at this stage even for a short period will hamper
the entire family; as such the sentence may be modified for
the period already undergone.
5. Learned counsel for the State supported the
judgment and submits that there is no error in the finding
given by the Trial Court. 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 findings 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 2003
and 19 years have elapsed and the petitioner must have
suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 19 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 30 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 court below is
hereby, modified to the extent that the petitioner- Shankar
Mahto is sentenced to undergo for the period already
undergone, subject to the payment of fine of Rs.5,000/-.
10. The sole petitioner- Shankar Mahto shall pay the
aforesaid fine of Rs.5,000/- within a period of four months
from today before the Secretary, D.L.S.A., Dumka, failing
which he shall serve rest of the sentence as ordered by the
learned trial court and upheld by appellate court.
11. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability
of his bail bond subject to the fulfillment of the aforesaid
condition.
12. With the aforesaid observations and modification
in sentence only, the instant revision application is disposed
of.
13. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the
courts below, Secretary, D.L.S.A., Dumka 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.)
sm/
