Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 578 (PAT)

Shivaji Giri v. State Of Bihar

2004-06-17

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2004
Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. Petitioner was put on trial for offence under sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pupri at Sitamarhi, by judgment dated 9th of January, 1996 passed in G.R.Case No. 246 of 1991 (Tr. No. 201 of 1995), held him guilty and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each for offence under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, hereinafter referred to as the IPC. Sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said judgment of conviction and sentence, has been dismissed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi by judgment dated 7th of February, 2004 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 8/59 of 1996/2003. 2. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has preferred this application. 3. According to the prosecution, on 18.1.1991, the son of the informant Sanjiv Kumar aged about 8 years was playing alongwith his friends on the eastern side of the pitch road and in the meanwhile a jeep bearing No. BHA 1887 dashed the son of the informant and fled away from the place of the occurrence. However, the jeep was chased and the driver of the jeep was apprehended who disclosed his name as that of the petitioner. The police, after investigation, submitted chargesheet and the petitioner was put on trial. The petitioner denied to have committed any offence and his plea is that he has been falsely implicated in the case. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, had altogether examined six witnesses. The learned Magistrate, on appreciation of evidence, held that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, which has been affirmed in appeal. 5. Mr. Prasoon Sinha, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in view of the material available on record, he cannot legitimately assail the conviction of the petitioner but he submits that the ends of justice shall be met in case the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. Mr. D.P. Tiwary, Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State, however, submits that in the facts of the present case, the sentence awarded to the petitioner cannot be said to be excessive. 7. Having considered the rival submission, I find substance in the contention of Mr. Sinha. The occurrence had taken place as back as on 19.1.1991. 6. Mr. D.P. Tiwary, Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State, however, submits that in the facts of the present case, the sentence awarded to the petitioner cannot be said to be excessive. 7. Having considered the rival submission, I find substance in the contention of Mr. Sinha. The occurrence had taken place as back as on 19.1.1991. Petitioner has suffered the ordeal of trial for more than a decade. He has already remained in jail for more than two weeks. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice shall be met if the period of sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him and further a fine of Rs. 250/- each is imposed for offence under sections 279 and 337 of the IPC. Mr. Sinha states that the fine amount shall be deposited within two weeks. Let it be done. In case, the fine amount is deposited, a sum of Rs. 250/- shall be paid to the informant. In case of failure, the petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment for two weeks. 8. In the result, the application is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner is maintained with the modification in the sentence aforesaid. The petitioner shall be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.