Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 757 (PAT)

Jagdeo Bagwai v. State Of Bihar

2003-07-24

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2003
Judgment CHANDRAMAULI KUMAR PRASAD, J. 1. Petitioner was put on trial for offence under Section 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Banka by judgment dated 18th of May, 2001 acquitted him of the charge under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code but found the petitioner guilty for offence under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. He sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- for offence under Section 279 and rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Sections 337 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by the same petitioner preferred appeal and the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Banka by judgment dated 20th of February, 2003 passed in criminal appeal No. 51 of 2001 dismissed the same. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, petitioner has preferred this revision application. 3. According to the prosecution on 17.11.1980 at about 11-15 a.m. the informant Gopal Prasad Ram was standing near the mill of one Mukhiya Jee and his niece Rita Kumari was going towards the Mahavir temple from the left side of the road. Further case of the prosecution is that in the meantime, one trecker coming from the western side dashed the niece of the informant and fled away from the place of occurrence. According to the informant, the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner was, ultimately, put on trail. In course of trial five witnesses were examined. The learned Magistrate on appreciation of the evidence held that no case under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code is not made out but he found the petitioner guilty of offence under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced him as above. Appeal preferred against the said judgment failed. 4. The Court below on appreciation of the evidence has held that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The finding has been recorded on appreciation of evidence and Mr. Mishra appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not pointed out any infirmity in the same. Appeal preferred against the said judgment failed. 4. The Court below on appreciation of the evidence has held that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The finding has been recorded on appreciation of evidence and Mr. Mishra appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not pointed out any infirmity in the same. As the judgment of conviction and sentence has been recorded, on appreciati in of evidence, same does not call for interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 5. Mr. Mishra, however, submits that occurrence had taken place as back as on 17.11.1990 and the petitioner had faced the ordeal of protracted trial and appeal for more than thirteen years, hence, it is a fit case in which the substantive sentence passed against the petitioner is fit to be reduced to the period already undergone. He points out that the petitioner had remained in jail for about three months. He states that the petitioner had already deposited the amount of fine. Mr. Dayal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appears on behalf of the State and submits that in the facts of the present case the sentence awarded to the petitioner cannot be said to be excessive. 6. Having considered the rival submissions, I find substance in the submission of Sri Mishra. Occurrence had taken place as back as on 17.11.1990 and the petitioner has been awarded the maximum sentence provided under the law. Petitioner had suffered the ordeal of trial and appeal as also the present revision for a period of more than one decade. He had already remained in jail for about three months. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner is fit to be reduced to the period already undergone by him but the sentence of fine imposed is fit to be maintained. 8. In the result, the revision application is dismissed with the modification in the sentence, as aforesaid. Petitioner be set at liberty forthwith.