Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1923
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.
Krishnadeo Yadav, S/o late Ajabi Yadav - Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand through Pramod Kumar Mandal, S/o Late Ramu Mandal – Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 932 of 2015
Decided on : 20-06-2025
For the Petitioner:Mr. Arvind Kr. Lall, Advocate Mr. Shiwam Lath, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P.
The court may exercise discretion to modify sentences based on age, health, and completed time served, particularly when compensation has been made to victims' families.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279 and 304A - Conviction affirmed - Revisionist confined argument to the point of sentence. Revocation of sentence of 6 months R.I. under Section 279 IPC and 2 years R.I. under Section 304A IPC sought due to advanced age (75) and health issues; compensation of Rs.70,000/- already paid to the deceased's parents, no ulterior gain in sending revisionist to jail - Modification of sentence to period already undergone. (Paras 1-10)
(B) Criminal Revision - Scope - The court may modify sentences based on the personal circumstances of the accused and the justice of the case where incarceration is unnecessary. (Paras 3-9)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. sentencing considerations based on age and health. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. affirmation of guilt; modification of sentence justified. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. partly allowed revision result. (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT :
ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.
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 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 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.
