( 2026:JHHC:4562 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 499 of 2024 Deven Ekka, aged about 24 years, son of Chameshwar Ekka, resident of village Ganmor, P.o. Posoita, P.S. Manoharpur, District-East Singhbhum ...... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner :Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl.P.P. ------ 05/ 17.02.2026: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 06.04.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum Chaibasa in Cr. Appeal No.-09 of 2024 whereby the judgement of conviction and order of sentenced dated 09.01.2024 passed by learned Magistrate 1st Class, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa has been affirmed whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under section 279 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default of payment of fine further to undergo imprisonment for seven days. The petitioner further sentenced to undergo for the offence under section 337 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default of payment of fine further to undergo imprisonment for seven days. The petitioner further sentenced to undergo for the offence under section 338 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 1000/-and in default of payment of fine further to undergo imprisonment for fifteen days. The petitioner further sentenced to undergo for the offence under section 304A of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 1000 and in default of payment of fine further to undergo imprisonment for fifteen days arising out of Goilkera P.S. Case No.01 of 2020, ( 2026:JHHC:4562 ) 2 dated 10.01.2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No.-238 of 2020, (T.R. No.-242 of 2024). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of fardbeyan of informant alleging therein that on 10.01.2020 at about 09:00 a.m. he went for shopping in weekly market Goilkera, after marketing he was returning to home situated in village-Banpasota traveling in the offending vehicle Tata Magic registration No. JH-05BS-1219 at about 01:30 p.m., besides him 30 other persons were boarded in the said vehicle. During course of returning when reached near Culvert at village-Amjharan, due to rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle it became turned over resulted 18 occupants of the vehicle and they sustained injuries. On these background the F.I.R has been registered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge has been framed thereafter aforesaid sentence has been passed against the petitioner. He next submits that six witnesses have been examined. P.W.1 and P.W. 2 are victims, P.W.3 is informant, P.W.4 is I.O., P.W.5 and P.W.6 are doctors. He next submits that P.W.1 who is the victim of the case has stated that she cannot say the vehicle number and she has not seen who was driving the vehicle. P.W.2 in his cross-examination has stated that he had not seen who was driving the vehicle. P.W. 3 has stated that he has no knowledge about the contents of fardbeyan. He submits that inspite of that the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced in the aforesaid sections and in view of that petitioner can be sentenced for the period he has already undergone. He next submits that petitioner is in custody since 21.11.2025 and he has remained in custody for three months and maximum sentence is one year. 5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that the learned court has appreciated the materials and thereafter passed ( 2026:JHHC:4562 ) 3 the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and there is no illegality in the judgment of both courts. 6. In course of argument, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was aged about 21 years at the time of accident and he is sole bread earner member of his family having two children and wife. 7. Reliance may be made to the case of “Surendran v. Sub- Inspector of Police, (2021) 17 SCC 799” wherein in paras 8, 9 and 10 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “8. The judgment of this Court in Prakash Chandra Agnihotri (Supra) as relied by learned counsel for the appellant does support his submissions. In the above case, the accused was convicted and sentenced for six months under Section 304A. This Court converted the sentence of imprisonment into fine of Rs. 500/-. The Court was of the view that it would be harsh to send the appellant to the Jail after 18 years of the occurrence. Following was observed in paragraph 1 of the judgment: – “1. The Courts below have maintained the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code. We have gone through the judgments of courts below and we find no infirmity therein. We uphold the conviction. The occurrence took place on February 18, 1972. The appellant has throughout been on bail. He has been sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250. We are of the view that it would be rather harsh to send the appellant to jail after 18 years of the occurrence. The ends of justice would be met if the appellant is asked to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-. The sentence is thus converted to a fine of Rs. 2000/-. On realisation the amount shall be paid to the family of the deceased girl. The amount be deposited with the Trial Court within two months from today and the trial court shall disburse the same to the parents of the girl and in absence of the parents to the next of kin of the girl. In default of the payment of fine the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for six months.” 9. The incident took place on 16.02.1995 i.e. more than 26 years ago. It appears that appellant was throughout on the bail. The Trial Court after marshalling the evidence has recorded the conviction under Section 279, 338 and awarded sentence of imprisonment of six months and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 337. 10. We do not find any error in conviction recorded by the Trial Court. The conviction of appellant is affirmed, however, looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case specially the fact that 26 years have elapsed from the incident, we are inclined to substitute the sentence of six months imprisonment under Section 279 and 338 into fine. Six months sentence under Section 279 and 338 IPC are substituted by fine of Rs. 1000/- each whereas sentence of fine under Section 337 IPC is maintained.” ( 2026:JHHC:4562 ) 4 8. In the case in hand the petitioner has been sentenced for one year and has remained in custody four days less in three months and during proceeding of the case the petitioner was on bail. The learned trial court after appreciating the evidences on record convicted the petitioner in the aforesaid sections and imposed sentence of one year with fine. 9. The judgment of both the Courts, the Court finds that there is no error and in view of that the conviction of the petitioner is hereby affirmed however, looking into the facts and circumstances of the present case and also considering the fact that the petitioner was aged about 21 years at the time of accident , in the interest of justice it will be suffice if the sentence is converted for the period the petitioner has already undergone. 10. In view of above modification of the order of sentence, this revision petition is partly allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of. 11. The revisionist/petitioner is directed to be released forthwith, if he is not wanted in any other case. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dt. 17.02.2026 Satyarthi/-