Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Md. Hannan Sk vs State on 24 September, 2019
Author: Tirthankar Ghosh
Bench: Tirthankar Ghosh
1 019 4 C.R.R. 2068 of 2003 + C.R.A. N. 3748 of 2019 Md. Hannan Sk.
Vs. State Ms. Sabnam Laskar Md. Ashraf Ali .....for the Petitioners Mr. Arijit Ganguly ....For the State The revisional application has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 22.7.2003 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track 2nd Court, Rampurhat, Birbhum in Criminal Appeal No. 01/2003, wherein the learned Appellate Court was pleased to affirm the order of conviction under Section 279/ 304A of the Indian Penal Code and modified the sentence so imposed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate Rampurhat in G.R. Case No. 721 of 1992, thereby directing the present petitioner to suffer S.I. for two years for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and setting aside the sentence imposed under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code.
Mr. Ali learned Lawyer appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been taken into custody on 6.8.2019 subsequent to the order dated 11.4.2019 passed by this Court.
The prosecution case in essence is that on 13.11.1992 at about 14.30 hrs. one Hasanujjaman @ Rinku Sk. was crossing the pucca road at Sanghata para 2 near the shop named Bablu Tailors, at that time one mini bus no. WGD 1772 by the name of "Mainak"ran over the said Hasunujjaman @ Rinku Sk. As a result of which his head was crushed under the wheels of the said bus and he died on the spot. The accused fled away after the incident.
The investigation of the case was taken up and final charge sheet under Section 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code was submitted before the learned SDJM Rampurhat. On or about 15.12.1992 the accused/petitioner was examined under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the particulars of the accusation were read over to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
In order to prove its case the prosecution relied upon ten witnesses. On conclusion of examination of the witnesses the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The defence was thereafter asked to produce witnesses in support of its case and as none was produced on behalf of the defence the learned Court fixed date for final argument. On completion of final argument of the case the learned trial Court by a judgement and order dated 2.6.2000 was pleased to hold the petitioner guilty and accordingly convicted him under Section 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and further S.I. for two years for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Court by the said order was further pleased to direct that the imprisonment for both the offences would run one after another. That the petitioner being aggrieved preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge which was finally heard out by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track 2nd Court Rampurhat and by a judgment and order dated 22.7.2003. the learned Appellate Court was pleased to affirm the order of conviction partly thereby holding that there was no necessity for passing sentence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the learned Appellate Court was pleased to affirm the order of conviction under Section 304A 3 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the petitioner to undergo S.I. for two years for the offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.
I have considered the evidence which was recorded by the learned trial Court from where I find that the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 speaks about rash driving at the instance of the petitioner. The said fact was also taken into consideration by the learned Appellate Court. Both the courts below on scrutiny and analysis of the evidence arrived at its finding of guilt so far as the present petitioner is concerned. I do not think that there is any illegality so far as the conclusion arrived at by the learned Trial Court and learned Appellate Court is concerned. Consequently order of conviction passed by the courts below are hereby affirmed.
However, I find that the incident complained of is the year 1992 i.e. about 27 years have passed in the mean time. It has been contended that since 6.8.2019 the petitioner is in custody. Considering the period suffered by way of mental agony and that in this type of offences there is no culpability involved of the petitioner, I think that no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner further in jail.
Hence, I hold that the ends of justice would be attained if the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to already that which has been undergone by him.
As such the petitioner being in custody is directed to be released if he is not wanted in any other case.
Accordingly CRR 2068 of 2003 is partly allowed.
Consequently CRAN 3748 of 2019 is disposed of.
Lower Court Records be forthwith sent down to the trial Court at once.
4Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on the usual undertakings.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)