2026:JHHC:21536 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 132 of 2015 -------- Shambhu Sao, S/o. late Bhushan Sao, R/o. Munidih Bazar, Gopinathdih, P.O.- Munidih, P.S.- Putki, Dist.- Dhanbad. ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opp. Party PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Abhay Kr. Mishra, Advocate : Mr. Krishna Prajapati, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. JUDGMENT C.A.V. On 24th June, 2026 Pronounced on: 20/07/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. 2. Instant Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment dated 08.01.2015 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-XII, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 208 of 2011, whereby and whereunder the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.08.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. Case No. 2631 of 2003 / T.R. No. 170 of 2011, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been held guilty for the offences under Sections 279 & 304A of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo three months S.I. under Section 279 of the I.P.C. and S.I. for one year for the offence under Section 304A of the I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2026:JHHC:21536 2 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 132 of 2015) Factual Matrix:- 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that on 12.09.2003 at about 6:15 A.M., nephew of the informant namely Robin Singhal aged about 11 years was going to board the school bus, as soon as, he reached near Bhuwan Sandhya Apartment more, a bus of D.A.V. School bearing registration no. JH01A-4726 rashly and negligently dashed Robin Singhal, due to which he succumbed to his injuries and died. It is alleged that the deceased was brought to PMCH hospital. The said occurrence occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the said driver of the bus and sub-driver. The nephew of the informant was student of Class 5th studying in I.S.L., Dhaiya School, Dhanbad. 4. On the basis of above written report of the informant, F.I.R. was instituted being Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 594 of 2003 for the offences under Sections 279 & 304A of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. 5. After investigation, the police has submitted charge-sheet and cognizance was taken, thereafter, substance of accusation was explained against the petitioner and co-accused for the offence under Sections 279 & 304A of the I.P.C. on 12.08.2004, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The learned trial court after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and after hearing the parties, found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Sections 279 & 304A of the I.P.C and sentenced him accordingly as stated above. 7. Against the above judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal bearing Cr. Appeal No. 208 of 2011, 2026:JHHC:21536 3 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 132 of 2015) wherein the learned Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court. In the instant revision, the petitioner has challenged the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 208 of 2011. 8. In the Course of Trial, prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses. Apart from the oral evidence, following documentary evidence has been adduced by the prosecution:- I. Ext. 1- Signature of informant Niraj Singhal on the written report. II. Ext. 1/1- Endorsement on the fardbeyan III. Ext. 1/2- Fardbeyan IV. Ext. 2- Carbon copy of the letter written to the M.V.I. V. Ext. 3- Report of M.V.I. VI. Ext. 4- Postmortem report VII. Ext. X- Xerox copy of inquest report. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner:- 9. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record and has arrived at wrong and erroneous conclusion. It is further submitted that the name of the present petitioner was not stated in the fardbeyan but the same was stated by the informant PW-5 Niraj Singhal during trial, which is totally subsequent improvement and development. The learned Court below has also failed to appreciate the fact that whether the occurrence took place by front side or by back side of the bus, whereas, as per fardbeyan, it has been stated that occurrence took place by front side of the bus, but PW-3 Binod Kumar has stated that 2026:JHHC:21536 4 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 132 of 2015) the bus was turning to left and incident took place. From the evidence of PW-3 to PW-5, it is clear that no any prosecution witness has seen the occurrence and on the basis of suspicion, petitioner was made accused. All the witnesses including the informant are of the same locality, so their statement cannot be relied upon. It is further submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody for about three months. The offence committed by the petitioner is bailable in nature and prays for modification in sentence as already undergone by him. Submissions on behalf of the State:- 10. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has defended the impugned judgment on merits and has submitted that there is concurrent finding of guilt of the petitioner recorded by the Court below. Therefore, the revision is fit to be dismissed. Analysis, discussion and reasons:- 11. I have gone through the record of the case alongwith the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court. 12. It appears that there is concurrent finding of both the courts below that the prosecution has been successfully able to establish the guilt of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 279 & 304A of the I.P.C. 13. Before adjudicating the above point, it is pertinent to apprise with the testimony of the witnesses examined during trial. PW-1 Mukesh Kumar Pandey has stated that occurrence took place in the year 2003 in morning. At that time, he was in his house. One person of his mohalla informed him that an accident took place by a bus in J.C. Mallick road and Robin Singhal sustained injuries. He 2026:JHHC:21536 5 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 132 of 2015) went to the place of occurrence, after that he also went to the hospital, where he heard about death of Robin Singhal. He did not know the name of driver of the alleged bus. He had not seen the occurrence. PW-2 Raju Dubey has been declared hostile as he expressed no knowledge about the occurrence. PW-3 Binod Kumar has stated that on the date of occurrence, he was going to drop his child at Denobili School. He further states that near Bhuwan Sandhya Apartment in J.C. Mallick road, a bus of D.A.V. School came and dashed 11 years’ old child, who was standing there. The child fell down, he was taken to PMCH. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he had seen the occurrence from 5-6 feet. The child was his neighbor. He further deposed that the child was dashed by the back side of the bus. PW-4 Manoj Kumar Singh has stated that occurrence took place on 12.09.2003 at 6:15 A.M. The child was his son. He heard about the occurrence after 10 minutes. When he went to the place of occurrence, he heard that a D.A.V. school bus dashed his son. Thereafter, he went to PMCH hospital. In his cross-examination, this witness has deposed that he had not seen the occurrence. PW-5 Niraj Singhal is the informant of this case. He has deposed that occurrence took place on 12.09.2003 at about 6:10 A.M. At that time, he was near Bhuwan Sandhya Apartment more, his nephew was going to board the school bus and DAV School bus rashly and negligently dashed his nephew, who came under the rear wheel. He further deposed that police recorded his statement at PMCH. He deposed that the present petitioner was the driver of the said bus. He alongwith 2026:JHHC:21536 6 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 132 of 2015) other Vinod Kumar (PW-3) and other 5-6 persons were there in the place of occurrence. The speed of the alleged bus was at 40-50 km/h. PW-6 Bhuwaneshwar Ram is the investigating officer of this case. He recorded the statement the informant Niraj Singhal (PW-5). He recorded re-statement of the informant and informant stated him that driver of the alleged bus driven the bus rashly and negligently and due to negligence of sub-driver, accident occurred and bus dashed the child. He inspected the place of occurrence. The house of the informant is 250 yards away from the place of occurrence. He sent the said bus for M.V.I. He obtained M.V.I. report and as per report, no mechanical fault was found. He sent the deceased for postmortem and received postmortem report. PW-7 Dr. Sailendra Kumar has conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased at PMCH, Dhanbad. He found the following ante-mortem injuries on external examination of the deceased:- I. Grazing abrasion 3’’ x 3’’ on right side of face, 2’’ x 1’’ on right side of forehead, 1/2’’ x 1/2'’ on right forearm. II. Lacerated wound 1/2’’ x ½’’ x muscle deep on right eye. On dissection:- blood clot was found in the area of 3” x 2” over temporal occipital region of scull on left side underneath the scalp. Subdural heamatoma was found diffused all over surface of brain on both sides. Blood clots were found all over chest and abdominal cavity. Right lung and right lobe of liver were found completely lacerated. Head and bladder were empty. Stomach contained 100 gm. of pasty food. Other external organ was pale. 2026:JHHC:21536 7 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 132 of 2015) Death was caused due to aforementioned injuries of brain and other internal vital organ caused by hard and blunt force. Injuries were consistent with motor vehicle accident. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that injury may be caused due to fall from height on hard surface. 14. In view of the above discussion, it appears that a child namely Robin Singhal, aged about 11 years, who was student of class 5th at I.S.L. Dhaiya School, was standing on the road side for boarding his school bus. A school bus of D.A.V. school dashed the child at the more of Bhuwan Sandhya Apartment by driving rashly and negligently due to which the child died on spot. The witnesses have also corroborated the manner of occurrence and place of occurrence. The finding of fact of the court below appears to be correct legal and proper, requiring no interference on merits by way of this revision. 15. It further appears that the occurrence is of the year 2003 and more than two decades have been elapsed. Somehow, parties have also settled in their life. A report was also called for from the Secretary, DLSA, Dhanbad with respect to compensation to the legal heirs of the victim, wherein, it has come in light that Rs. 1,58,000/- has been received by the parents of the deceased namely Manoj Kumar Singhal (Father) and Lalita Devi (mother) on 17.09.2007 awarded by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-XIII, Dhanbad in MACT Case No. 217 of 2003. 16. So far sentence awarded to the petitioner by the learned Trial Court is concerned, it appears that maximum sentence of S.I. for one year has been awarded by the learned Trial Court. From perusal of the record, it further appears that the petitioner has remained in custody 2026:JHHC:21536 8 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 132 of 2015) for about three months. The offence committed by the petitioner is of bailable in nature. The legal heirs of the deceased has also been compensated with some amount. Accordingly, the sentence awarded to the petitioner by the learned Trial court is hereby reduced to the extent as custody period already undergone by the petitioner. 17. In view of the above, this revision is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to the extent that instead of undergoing substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner by the learned Trial Court, the sentence of the petitioner is hereby reduced to custody period already undergone by him. 18. In view of above discussion and reason, impugned judgment of the Court below is upheld on merits but with modification in sentence to the extent as mentioned above. 19. Let a copy of this order alongwith trial court records be sent back to the concerned court immediately for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Dated: 20/07/2026 Rahul-NAFR Uploaded on 21/07/2026