Jharkhand High Court
Bishram Munda vs The State Of Jharkhand ... .... Opp. ... on 28 June, 2024
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 118 of 2022
-----
Bishram Munda ... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... .... Opp. Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-----
For the Petitioner : Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.K. Chatterjee, S.P.P.
-----
Oral Order
07 / Dated : 28.06.2024
1. The instant revision petition has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in Cr. Appeal No. 51/2018 by which the judgment of conviction under Section 279, 337, 427 and 304A of Indian Penal Code passed by the Trial Court has been affirmed in appeal.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is patent illegality in the order of conviction and sentence. Firstly, when the conviction and sentence has been awarded for the offence under major section of Indian Penal Code. Such conviction and sentence could not have been awarded under 337 of Indian Penal Code.
3. I find much force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner in view of Section 220 Cr.P.C. and Section 71 of Indian Penal Code.
4. Furthermore, it has been rightly pointed out that the conviction under Section 427 of Indian Penal Code, there is no evidence for the offence of mischief having been caused by the petitioner merely because in the accident, motorcycle was also damaged. Therefore, Section 427 of Indian Penal Code will not come into play unless it was done with an intention or knowledge or damaging the motorcycle. The only eye witness in the present case is PW 1 and he has not stated a word regarding speed of the vehicle and the attending circumstances which resulted the accident. The vehicle had only one headlight at the time of accident.
5. On the point of sentence, it is submitted that there is no past conviction proved against the petitioner and he has already served four months of imprisonment.
6. Learned counsel for the State has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
7. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, this Court is of the view that the conviction under Sections 337 and 427 of Indian Penal Code is not sustainable. However, taking into account the deposition of eye witness PW1 wherein he has stated that accident took place at night and only one headlight was on. Hence, judgment of conviction under Section 279 and 304 A of the IPC is affirmed.
8. On the point sentence of sentence, considering the age, antecedent and over all facts and circumstance, the sentence of imprisonment for the period already undergone will meet the ends of justice.
Cr. revision petition is dismissed with modification of sentence.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satayendra Uploaded