Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY PRASAD
Kanuram Purty – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The present Criminal Revision No. 1207 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 12.06.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2024 by Shri Vishwa Nath Shukla, the learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa has partly allowed and partly dismissed the Appeal and the acquitted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 337 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, however, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.02.2024 passed by Sri Binod Kumar, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa by the learned Trial Court below for the offences under Sections 279 of 338 of the Indian Penal Code are upheld. Although vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.02.2024 passed by Sri Binod Kumar, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa in connection with Manjhari P. S. Case No. 07 of 2018 corresponding to G. R. No. 162 of 2018, the petitioner was convicted for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of six (6) months and to pay the fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 279 of the
The court upheld certain convictions while granting bail based on the petitioner's lengthy custody and circumstances of the case.
Negligence under Indian Penal Code sections 279 and 304A requires evidence of recklessness leading to fatal consequences, with affirmed convictions supporting the effectiveness of judicial decisions.
The court condoned the delay in filing a Criminal Revision Application and granted bail to the petitioner, emphasizing the need for conditions to prevent further criminal conduct.
Conviction under IPC for negligent driving resulting in death affirmed; bail granted considering custody duration and case circumstances.
The court modified the sentence of the accused due to prolonged trial and personal circumstances, affirming the conviction while ensuring justice is served.
The court has the discretion to suspend a sentence with appropriate conditions based on the nature of allegations and the petitioner's circumstances.
The court modified the sentence for the accused-petitioner to the period already undergone, emphasizing the need for justice considering the lengthy trial and personal circumstances.
The court upheld the modification of conviction from Section 326 to Section 324 based on procedural irregularities and mental anguish caused by prolonged litigation.
The court upheld the conviction under IPC sections while emphasizing limitations on revisional jurisdiction and the right to a speedy trial, reducing the sentence due to the petitioner's health and t....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
