2026:JHHC:22510 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 655 of 2016 -------- Vinay Kumar Bind, son of Sri Sudama Bind, resident of Village-Navada, P.O.-Navada, P.S.-Garhwa, District-Garhwa ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kumar Nilesh, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. -------- P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- Dated: 28th July, 2026 By Court:- Heard Mr. Kumar Nilesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl.P.P. for the State. 2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 18.08.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2012 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Palamau at Daltonganj, whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal by affirming the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.01.2012, passed by learned J.M. 1st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj, in G.R. Case No. 1193/07 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Sections 279 and 304A of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 months for the offence under Section 279 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for 1 year for the offence under Section 304A of the I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Factual Matrix 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the informant, 2026:JHHC:22510 2 Md. Muslim Ansari, lodged the F.I.R. stating, inter alia, that on 19.08.2007 at about 01:30 P.M., his daughter, aged about 7 years, was returning home after reading in Urdu School and as soon as she reached Kabristan Chowk, a passenger vehicle bearing registration no. JH-03B-7798 came from the side of B More in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the daughter of the informant. As a result, she sustained grievous injuries and fell down. Thereafter, the driver of the said vehicle fled away towards Garhwa at a high speed. The informant, who was taking tea at a shop near the place of occurrence and on seeing his daughter being dashed by the bus, he rushed there and with the help of people present there, he took his daughter to Garhwa Hospital, where she died during the course of treatment. 4. On the basis of above fardbeyan of the informant, Rehala, P.S. Case No. 45 of 2007 dated 19.08.2007 was registered for the offence under Sections 279 and 304A of the I.P.C. 5. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences and the then learned C.J.M, Palamau took cognizance of the same. The substance of accusations was explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to the tried. 6. In the course of trial altogether six witnesses were examined by prosecution apart from documentary evidence. 7. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. 2026:JHHC:22510 3 8. After conclusion of trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as stated above, which was upheld by learned Appellate Court against which this criminal revision has been assailed. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner without touching the merits of the judgment has confined himself towards the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner. It is submitted that although, no concrete evidence has been adduced by the prosecution against the petitioner, but he has been convicted for the offence under Sections 279 and 304A of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year. It is further submitted that the petitioner has undergone into custody for 9 months in connection with the present case during the trial and post conviction. Therefore, he has been punished sufficiently for his guilt. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for modification of the sentence awarded to the petitioner to the period of custody already undergone. 10. On the other hand learned Spl.P.P. has defended the impugned judgment of learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court on merits. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, it is submitted that this case is stale one, of the year 2007 and the petitioner has remained in custody for about 9 months, hence appropriate order may be passed for the ends of justice. 11. I have gone through the record of case along with impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court as well as the Trial Court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of respective parties. 2026:JHHC:22510 4 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, genesis and manner of occurrence under which the offence was committed by petitioner, the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the I.P.C. passed by the learned Trial Court and upheld by learned Appellate Court is affirmed. But so far as sentence is concerned, the incident is of the year 2007 and about two decades have been elapsed and out of one year imprisonment, he has already undergone about nine months in custody, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner again in jail for sustaining the rest of the imprisonment. Therefore, sentence is reduced from one year of R.I. to imprisonment already undergone by him. 13. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed on merits with modification in the sentence as stated above. 14. The petitioner is on bail, as such, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged. 15. Pending I.A.s, if any stands disposed of. 16. Let a copy of this order along with Trial Court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 28.07.2026 Arpit Uploaded on 31/07/2026