Bindeshwar Mahto @ Bindeshwari Mahto vs The State Of Bihar
2026 Latest Caselaw 352 Patna

Patna High Court

Bindeshwar Mahto @ Bindeshwari Mahto vs The State Of Bihar on 9 February, 2026

Author: Arun Kumar Jha

Bench: Arun Kumar Jha

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL REVISION No.969 of 2024
    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-244 Year-2008 Thana- ARARIA District-
                                  Araria
   ===================================================
   Bindeshwar Mahto @ Bindeshwari Mahto Son of Dashrath Mahto
   Resident of village -Radhanagar Garbanaili police station- kasba
   District- purnea
                                                      ... ... Petitioner/s
                                  Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2.   Munna Kumar son of Late Dinanath Bahardar Resident of Village-
     Nayanagar Ward no. 9, Gauri chack, Ps- Araria, Dist- Araria
                                                       ... ... Respondent/s
     ===================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s :   Mr.Ramesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
     For the Respondent/s:    Md. Matloob Rab, APP
     ===================================================
      CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
                            ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 09-02-2026

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

learned counsel for the State.

2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred by

the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 26.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge-4th, Araria in Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2014

whereby and whereunder the judgment of conviction and order

of sentence dated 25.06.2014 passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate-1st Class, Araria in Araria P.S. Case No. 244 of 2008

has been affirmed by which the petitioner has been convicted for

the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338, 304(A) of the

IPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a

period of three months for the offences under Section 279 of the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.969 of 2024 dt.09-02-2026

IPC and fine of Rs.500 and further sentenced to undergo

imprisonment for a period of six months and fine of Rs.500/- for

the offences under Section 338 of the IPC. The petitioner was

further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period

of 1 ½ years for the offences under Section 304(A) of the IPC

and fine of Rs.1500/- and was further sentenced to undergo

further simple imprisonment for a period of two months for

default of payment of fine. All the sentences were ordered to run

concurrently.

3. As per prosecution case, on 19.05.2008, when the

informant hired a tempo and went to Bhatta Bazar for

purchasing fish and while returning from there, the tempo met

with an accident due to rash driving and negligence of the tempo

driver. The father of the informant, the informant and other

ladies sustained injuries in the said accident and subsequently

the father of the informant succumbed to the injuries. The

petitioner is said to be the driver of the alleged tempo.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the impugned orders of the learned Courts below are bad in law

as well as on facts. There is material contradiction in the

evidence of prosecution witnesses who are the close relatives of

the informant and are interested witnesses. Further, the doctor

has also not been examined. The learned courts below did not Patna High Court CR. REV. No.969 of 2024 dt.09-02-2026

consider the fact that the accident occurred due to burst of tyre of

the tempo. The learned courts below also did not consider the

cross examination of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses.

The learned trial court did not examine the evidence of the

witnesses minutely and came to an erroneous finding and hence,

the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the

courts below are not sustainable. The learned counsel further

submits that the petitioner is in custody since 26.10.2024, i.e. for

1 year and 4 months. He has no criminal antecedent. Therefore,

it is prayed by the learned counsel that the judgments and orders

of the learned courts below may be set aside and the revision

petition may be allowed. If the Court is not inclined, then in that

case the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to

the period already undergone by him.

5. Learned counsel for the State submits that appellate

court rightly upheld the order of the trial court as there is specific

allegation that due to the rash driving and negligence of the

petitioner, the vehicle met with an accident in which the father of

the informant died and the informant and other ladies sustained

injuries. The prosecution witnesses have supported the

prosecution case in their deposition.

6. Perused the record.

7. Having regard to the rival submission of the parties Patna High Court CR. REV. No.969 of 2024 dt.09-02-2026

and on perusal of the judgment of the learned appellate court and

the learned trial court, considering the fact that the petitioner has

already suffered incarceration for a period of about 1 year 4

months out of total sentence of 1 year 6 months, finding not

much merit in the case, it would be in fitness of things that the

petitioner be released by reducing his sentence to the period

already undergone by him. Accordingly, it is ordered that the

petitioner will be released from custody forthwith subject to

verification of the payment of fine imposed in terms of the

appellate court's order, if not required in any other matter. If the

fine has not been paid, the petitioner will be released only after

the payment of fine.

8. With the aforesaid modification in the order of

sentence, the present criminal revision petition stands disposed

of.

9. Office is directed to return the LCR forthwith.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J) Anuradha/-

AFR/NAFR              NAFR
CAV DATE              N/A
Uploading Date        10.02.2026
Transmission Date     10.02.2026