( 2026:JHHC:24500 ) 1 C r.Rev. No. 1074 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.Rev. No. 1074 of 2017 ---- Bulaki Mahto, Father of Late Bishun Mahto, Resident of Village Madhwatand P.O. & P.S. Jainagar District Koderma … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Teklal Paswan S/o Late Somari Paswan resident of village Rupaidih, P.O. & P.S. Jainagar District Koderma … … Opp. Parties --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sushant Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Addl.P.P. For the Opp. Party No.2 : None --- 22/14.08.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment dated 20.06.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koderma in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2015 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction dated 18.08.2015 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in G.R. Case No. 756 of 2008 (T.R. No. 909 of 2015) convicting the petitioner for the alleged offence under sections 279, 337 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code has been confirmed. The appellate court has confirmed the sentence of the petitioner to 6-month RI under section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and 4 months under section 337 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence under section 304A of Indian Penal Code has been modified and reduced to 6 months with fine of Rs. 5,000/-. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall confine his argument only on the point of sentence. 4. He submits that on 01.11.2008 at 4 pm informant’s son aged 6 years was near the road and petitioner driving his motorcycle rashly and negligently dashed to the son of the informant due to which he got serious injuries, admitted to Hospital, referred to higher institute for better treatment and ultimately died. Jainagar P.S. Case No. 100 of 2008 on 02.11.2008 was registered for offence punishable under section 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. However, on account of his death the ( 2026:JHHC:24500 ) 2 C r.Rev. No. 1074 of 2017 charge sheet was filed and charge was framed for the offence under sections 279, 337 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was sentenced by the learned trial court to undergo RI for 6 six months for the offence punishable under section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, RI for four months for the offence under section 337 of the Indian Penal Code and RI for two years with fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence under section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and all the sentence were directed to run concurrently. 5. Learned counsel submits that the accident had taken place on a public road and a small child of 6 years was wandering on the road. He also submits that the Appellate court has reduced the sentence for offence under section 304A of the Indian Penal Code to RI for six months along with fine of Rs. 5000/- and the sentences under other sections were sustained. 6. The Learned counsel submits that the accident had happened way back in the year 2008 and by now about 18 years have elapsed and the petitioner is around 82 years of age. Learned counsel submits that considering these aspects of the matter the sentence of the petitioner be confined to the period already undergone in custody. He submits that the petitioner has remained in custody for 3 months from 11.06.2025 to 11.09.2025. He further submits that while considering the sentence some amount of victim compensation may be directed to be paid. 7. He has relied upon the order passed by this Court in Cr. Revision No. 109 of 2019 dated 04.04.2024 wherein the sentence was modified and the fine amount was enhanced to Rs. 50,000/-. He has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 3081 of 2026 (arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 19486 of 2025) reported in 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 639 and has referred to paragraph 18 of the same to submit that while considering the question of sentence, the Court is required to balance the nature of the offence with the attending facts and circumstances of the case and the role attributed to the accused, the period of incarceration undergone, the passage of time and other mitigating circumstances relevant to sentencing jurisprudence. The principle of proportionality remains ( 2026:JHHC:24500 ) 3 C r.Rev. No. 1074 of 2017 central to the sentencing process. Sentencing cannot be reduced to a purely retributive exercise divorced from the factual matrix of the case and the overall circumstances of the offender. 8. The Learned counsel for the State has submitted that there are concurrent findings with respect to the alleged offence and the same does not call for any interference as it does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. So far as the sentence is concerned, the learned counsel has submitted that it is for the court to pass appropriate orders. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that the child aged 6 years was wandering on the road and the accident had taken place on the public road way back in 2008 and more than 18 years have already elapsed. The petitioner is at advance age of 82 years and considering these aspects of the matter, this Court is of the view that the sentence of the petitioner is required to be modified further. 10. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the sentence of the petitioner is reduced in connection with the offence under section 304A, 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code to 3 months and so far as the fine under section 304A Indian Penal Code is concerned the same is enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh only) to be deposited by the petitioner before the learned trial court within a period of three months from today. The fine amount so deposited is directed to be remitted to the informant of this case after due verification. 11. If the fine amount is not deposited within the stipulated time, the petitioner would serve the sentence as directed by the learned appellate court. 12. The criminal revision application is, accordingly, disposed of with aforesaid modification of sentence. 13. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. 14. Let this order be communicated to the learned court through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 14.08.2026 Uploaded on: 14.08.2026 MM/