2025:JHHC:20143 1 Cr. Revision No. 679 of 2015 THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 679 of 2015 Kalim Ansari, Son of Sakur Ansari resident of Village Chiri Barwatoli, P.O. Chiri, Barwatoli, P.S. Kuru, District Lohardaga, Jharkhand ..… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .....Opposite Party --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Imtiaz Khan, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, A.P.P. --------- 19/ 23rd July, 2025 1. This revision has been directed against the Judgment dated 20.01.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in Cr. Appeal No. 15 of 2012, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge has affirmed Judgment of conviction dated 13.02.2012 but modify the sentence passed by learned J.M, 1st Class at Lohardaga in G.R. No. 133 of 2002/ T.R. No. 15 of 2012 wherein the petitioner has been held guilty for the offence under Section 279 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/revisionist submitted that the petitioner has filed one supplementary affidavit dated 05.07.2025 whereby petitioner has confined the prayer in the revision to assailing the order of sentence only. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/revisionist submitted that petitioner has been convicted under Section 279 of I.P.C. and trial court has awarded sentence for six months, however the appellate court while affirming the conviction of petitioner U/s 279 of I.P.C, modified the sentence from six months to two months and out of two months petitioner has already spent twenty five days behind the bar in the present case. He also pointed out that this incident is of the year 2002 and since then petitioner is facing the rigor of trial in the present case. It is further submitted that petitioner is only the bread winner of the family and he has to look after his children and no purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bar in the present case. 4. Upon aforesaid premise, submission has been made that sentence 2025:JHHC:20143 2 Cr. Revision No. 679 of 2015 be modified by this Revisional Court to the extent “already undergone”. 5. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer made on behalf of petitioner on the premise that one person succumbed to injury and on technical point this petitioner has not been convicted under Section 304-A of I.P.C. 6. Heard both the learned counsels and perused the documents available on record. 7. Perusal of record transpires that brother of deceased Sukra Oraon is the informant in the present case who has stated that the dumper on which this deceased as well as other villagers were employed turned turtle on account of rash and negligent driving of this petitioner and it resulted into causing death of the deceased Sukra Oraon. 8. Prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses and after appreciation of evidence, learned Magistrate vide Judgment dated 13.02.2012 exonerated the petitioner from charges under Section 304- A, 337 and 338 of the I.P.C, however, found him guilty under Section 279 of I.P.C. and directed petitioner to undergo six months simple imprisonment. 9. Against the above-said impugned Judgment dated 13.02.2012 passed by learned J.M, 1st Class at Lohardaga, petitioner preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 15/2012 and learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga vide Judgment dated 20.01.2015 affirmed the conviction of petitioner U/s 279 of I.P.C. but modified the sentence of S.I. for six months into S.I. for two months. 10. The incident is said to be of the year 2002. Undoubtedly, petitioner has faced agony of prosecution for so many years and as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner has to look after his family as he is the only bread winner of the family. Custody report of Jail Superintendent Lohardaga reveals that petitioner was in custody for 25 days in the present case. 11. This Court does not find any infirmity in the finding of appellate Court’s Judgment dated 20.01.2015 whereby and whereunder petitioner has been found guilty U/s 279 of I.P.C. 12. Consequently, this Court affirms the judgment of conviction of the 2025:JHHC:20143 3 Cr. Revision No. 679 of 2015 petitioner dated 20.01.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in Cr. Appeal No. 15 of 2012. 13. In view of above stated facts, this Court is of considered view that ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the petitioner by learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2012 is modified and the petitioner is sentenced to “period already undergone”. 14. Therefore, the instant Criminal Revision is partly allowed, subject to above-said modification in the sentence awarded to petitioner. 15. Since the petitioner is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of the bail bonds. 16. Let the trial court record be sent back to the court concerned. (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Rajnish/