[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Md. Jilani Ansari @ Md. Jilani Aged About ... vs The State Of Jharkhand ..... ... ... on 17 February, 2026

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                          ( 2026:JHHC:4621 )




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
             Cr. Revision No. 1197 of 2025

Md. Jilani Ansari @ Md. Jilani aged about 50 years, son of late Md. Nijam
Ansari, resident of village-Bhathitoli, Islampur, Simdega, P.O. and P.S.
Simdega (Jharkhand)
                                               ...... ...     Petitioner
                              Versus
The State of Jharkhand                                .....   ...      Opposite Party
                           --------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner :Mr. K.S. Nanda, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, Spl. P.P.

------

05/ 17.02.2026: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment

dated 27.03.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2023 by learned

District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti whereby he has been pleased

to affirm the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

28.09.2021, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Khunti in

G.R. Case No 77 of 2018, arising out of Khunti P.S. Case No. 24 of 2018 (T.R.

No. 32/2020) whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence

under sections 279, 337, 338, 304(A) of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo

imprisonment for six months under Section 279 of I.P.C., imprisonment for a

six months under Section 337 of I.P.C., imprisonment for one Year under

Sections 338 of I.P.C. and imprisonment 2 Years under Section 304 (A) of

I.P.C. however all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case

has been lodged on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant alleging therein

that on 21.12.18 at about 11:00 hours, the cousin sister of informant, namely

Poonam Priya, his father, Rajendra Prasad, husband of Poonam, Rupesh

Kumar, her daughter, niece and her parents with driver were going to Ranchi

from Khunti by his Alto Car bearing Registration No. BR-27E-3649, and the

( 2026:JHHC:4621 )

car was driven by brother of Poonam Priya. It has been further alleged that

as soon as they reached near Kasturba Gandhi School at Kalamati, the driver

of Mohan Bus, negligently and rashly driving it, coming from Ranchi side

dashed their car, due to which Poonam Priya, her three year daughter and

her niece died on the spot, whereas remaining persons seated in the car

were injured. It is further alleged that Poonam Priya taken to Medica hospital

for treatment where doctor declared her as dead, whereas the treatment of

other injures persons continued in Medica Hospital. In these background the

F.I.R has been lodged.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits altogether nine witnesses

have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. He submits that in this

background the learned trial court has sentenced the petitioner in the aforesaid

sections and the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and trial

court judgment has been affirmed by the learned appellate court. He next

submits that the petitioner was in custody since 01.10.2023 to 08.12.2023

and further surrendered on 02.12.2025 and since then he is in custody. The

petitioner has already remained in custody for about five months.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is

aged about 50 years and he is sole bread earner member of his family having

two children and wife. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner

is driver having no criminal antecedent and there is no chance of this petitioner

to commit same type of accident.

6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits

that the learned court has appreciated the materials and thereafter passed

the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and there is no illegality in

the judgment of both courts.

7. Reliance may be made to the case of "Surendran v. Sub-

( 2026:JHHC:4621 )

Inspector of Police, (2021) 17 SCC 799" wherein in paras 8, 9 and 10

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"8. The judgment of this Court in Prakash Chandra Agnihotri (Supra) as relied by learned counsel for the appellant does support his submissions. In the above case, the accused was convicted and sentenced for six months under Section 304A. This Court converted the sentence of imprisonment into fine of Rs. 500/-. The Court was of the view that it would be harsh to send the appellant to the Jail after 18 years of the occurrence. Following was observed in paragraph 1 of the judgment: -

"1. The Courts below have maintained the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code. We have gone through the judgments of courts below and we find no infirmity therein. We uphold the conviction. The occurrence took place on February 18, 1972. The appellant has throughout been on bail. He has been sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.

250. We are of the view that it would be rather harsh to send the appellant to jail after 18 years of the occurrence. The ends of justice would be met if the appellant is asked to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-. The sentence is thus converted to a fine of Rs. 2000/-. On realisation the amount shall be paid to the family of the deceased girl. The amount be deposited with the Trial Court within two months from today and the trial court shall disburse the same to the parents of the girl and in absence of the parents to the next of kin of the girl. In default of the payment of fine the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for six months."

9. The incident took place on 16.02.1995 i.e. more than 26 years ago. It appears that appellant was throughout on the bail. The Trial Court after marshalling the evidence has recorded the conviction under Section 279, 338 and awarded sentence of imprisonment of six months and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 337.

10. We do not find any error in conviction recorded by the Trial Court. The conviction of appellant is affirmed, however, looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case specially the fact that 26 years have elapsed from the incident, we are inclined to substitute the sentence of six months imprisonment under Section 279 and 338 into fine. Six months sentence under Section 279 and 338 IPC are substituted by fine of Rs. 1000/- each whereas sentence of fine under Section 337 IPC is maintained."

8. The petitioner is driver aged about 50 years and he is sole bread

earner member of his family having two children and wife. Learned counsel

for the petitioner submits that petitioner is driver having no criminal

antecedent.

9. In view of above and considering the above judgment the

Court finds that there is no error in the judgment of both the courts and in

view of that the conviction of the petitioner is hereby affirmed however,

( 2026:JHHC:4621 )

looking into the facts and circumstances of the present case and also

considering the fact that the petitioner is aged about 50 years and case is

arising out of road accident, in the interest of justice it will be suffice if the

sentence is converted for the period the petitioner has already undergone.