Jharkhand High Court
Krishnadeo Yadav vs State Of Jharkhand Through Pramod Kumar ... on 20 June, 2025
2025:JHHC:16238
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 932 of 2015
Krishnadeo Yadav, S/o late Ajabi Yadav, Resident of village- Baribishar,
P.O.&P.S. Barahat, District- Banka(Bihar) ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand through Pramod Kumar Mandal, S/o Late Ramu
Mandal, Village- Barka Pathar, P.O.&P.S. Saraiyahat District- Dumka
... Opposite Party
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kr. Lall, Advocate
: Mr. Shiwam Lath, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P.
---------
Order No.18/ Dated 20th June, 2025
1. Learned counsel for the revisionist started his argument by making
submission that revisionist does not want to assail the judgment of
conviction under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC, but he only confines
his argument on the point of sentence awarded by learned Magistrate
and affirmed by learned Appellate Court. He further pointed out that
vide judgment and order of sentence dated 28th September, 2010,
revisionist has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months for
offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and R.I. for two years
for the offence under Section 304A of IPC.
2. It has also been urged on behalf of the revisionist that revisionist is 75
years of age and ailing person. Apart from that, it has also been
brought on record by way of giving certified copy of award of Lok
Adalat dated 24.08.2011 and other orders in the motor accident claim
case being, Title Claim Suit No. 24 of 2009 in which matter was
settled for Rs. 70,000/- and father and mother of the deceased boy has
already received Rs. 70,000/-. Certified copy of order dated
2025:JHHC:16238
24.08.2011, showing that the payment of compensation of
Rs.70,000/- has already been paid to the deceased, is taken on record.
3. He further pointed out that no purpose would be served if the
revisionist be sent behind the bar.
4. It has also been pointed out that he is totally dependent upon his son
and unable to move.
5. Upon aforesaid premise, prayer has been made that the sentence
awarded by learned Magistrate and affirmed by learned Sessions
Court be modified, as sentence already undergone because revisionist
has already spent 3 months and 12 days in the jail.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed modification of sentence
awarded to the revisionist on the premise that 12 years' boy has died
in the road accident and both the courts have concurrently found
revisionist guilty.
7. Perusal of record transpires that 12 years' boy met with an accident
and died by a truck bearing Registration No. HP 20 1281 which was
being driven by this revisionist and for the said act Saraiyahat P.S.
Case No. 17/09 registered under Sections 279/304A of IPC. After
trial, revisionist vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 28.09.2010 passed by J.M. 1st Class, Dumka in Saraiyahat P.S.
Case No 17/09, G.R. Case No. 96/2009 has been convicted under
Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6
months under Section 279 of IPC and R.I. for 2 years under Section
304A of IPC and both the sentences shall directed to be run
concurrently. Above said judgment and order of sentence has been
affirmed by District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Dumka in
Criminal Appeal No. 139 /2010 vide judgment dated 27.02.2015.
Custody report sent by Jail Superintendent, Dumka reveals that
petitioner has undergone 3 months and 12 days in the custody in the
present case.
8. Considering the fact that the petitioner is 75 years of age and
compensation has already been received by parents of deceased and
2025:JHHC:16238
revisionist has faced the agony of trial for almost 15 years, no fruitful
purpose would be served by sending the revisionist behind the bar at
this stage.
9. Therefore, judgment dated 27.02.2015 passed by the District and
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Dumka in Criminal Appeal No.
139/2010 qua guilt of revisionist under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC
is hereby affirmed. But, this Court is of considered view that sentence
ought to be modified under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. Ends of
justice would be met if the revisionist is sentenced under Sections
279 and 304A of the IPC to the period already undergone.
10. This Criminal Revision is partly allowed in view of aforesaid
modification of sentence.
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
R.K./Suman
