Rajesh Kumar Ram @ Rajesh Ram vs State Of Jharkhand

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment dated 27.06.2016 passed by District & Sessions Judge XVI, Dhanbad in Cr Appeal no 8/2016 whereby the appeal has been dismissed. The case arises out of trial court judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.12.15 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1 class, Dhanbad in G.R Case No. 949/2009 corresponding to Jharia P.S. Case No. 86/2009. The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court in the following manner: -

a) For offence under Section 279 IPC- simple imprisonment of six months;

b) for the offence under Section 337 IPC- simple imprisonment of six months has been awarded and

c) for the offence under Section 338 IPC- simple imprisonment of one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- has been awarded. In case of default of payment of fine, three months simple imprisonment has also been awarded.

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his argument on the point of sentence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incident is of the year 2009 and more than 15 years have been passed from the date of the incident. The present offence is the first offence of the petitioner. The records reveal that the P.W. 2 had suffered grievous injury of fracture and so far as P.W. 1 and 3 are concerned they suffered simple injuries. The records also do not indicate any permanent disablement of the aforesaid three victims who were examined as witness before the learned court.

The learned counsel further submits that at the stage of trial the petitioner had remained in custody for a period of 14 days and after appeal and before this court in revision his petition seeking exemption from surrender was rejected by this Court vide order dated 03.02.2017 and then the petitioner surrendered on 04.02.2017 and was enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 14.02.2017 and the petitioner could furnish his bail bond only on 18.02.2017. Thereafter on account of the fact that the counsel for the petitioner was not able to contact the petitioner, the bail bond furnished by the petitioner was canceled and now the petitioner is in custody since 27.07.2024. The learned counsel submits that in the interlocutory application seeking bail being I.A. No. 7712 of 2024, the petitioner has stated that the notice pursuant to order dated 13.05.2024 passed by this court was not properly communicated to the petitioner due to which he was not able to appear before this Court and ultimately his bail bond was canceled vide order dated 25.06.2024. He has also submitted that in the meantime, the petitioner had met with an accident on 16.06.2024 and has voluntarily surrendered on 24.07.2024 before the court concerned.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that he is ready to pay victim compensation as may be directed by this Court and the sentence of the petitioner be confined to the petitioner already undergone by him in the custody. He is also ready to deposit the fine amount of Rs. 1,000/-. The learned counsel has also submitted that there is no minimum sentence as such prescribed under any of the Sections for which the petitioner has been convicted.

The learned counsel for the State also does not dispute that there is no minimum sentence as such prescribed under the sections on which the petitioner has been convicted, however he has opposed the revision petition. So far as sentence of the petitioner is concerned, he has submitted that it is for the court to pass appropriate order on the point of sentence.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case it is not in dispute that the incident in the present case is of 26.03.2009 and the allegation against the petitioner was that he was driving tempo speedily and negligently as a result of which three persons sustained injuries. All the three persons who sustained the injury were examined as witness before the court and the doctor was also examined. The records reveal that only P.W. 2 had suffered grievous injury and the remaining two had suffered simple injuries. The petitioner is now aged about 49 years and the present offence is the first offence of the petitioner. More than 15 years have elapsed from the date of the incident and the petitioner has certainly faced the rigors of the criminal case for a long time.

Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, this court is of the considered view that ends of justice would be served if the sentence of the petitioner is modified and reduced and victim compensation is given to the victims. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner mentioned above, the total period of custody of the petitioner so far is about 27 days which is certainly subject to verification by the court concerned.

This court hereby modifies the sentence of the petitioner for each offence and reduces it to the period of one month (30 days) subject to payment of victim compensation of Rs. 30,000/-, out of which Rs. 20,000/- to the paid to P.W. 2 who suffered grievous injury and Rs. 5,000/- each be paid to other two victims i.e. P.W. 1 and P.W. 3. The petitioner shall also deposit the fine amount of Rs. 1,000/-. The entire amount of Rs. 30,000/- + Rs. 1000/- be deposited prior to release of the petitioner and subject to verification of the custody of the petitioner.

After deposit of the aforesaid amount and completion of the period of modified sentence, the petitioner shall be released from the custody if not wanted in any other case.

Upon deposit of the aforesaid amount, the learned court is directed to take steps for disbursing the amount to the aforesaid victims upon due identification.

This revision application is hereby disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are closed.

In case the petitioner does not deposit the victim compensation amount and the fine amount he would serve the remaining sentence as awarded by the learned trial court.

Let the record as received be immediately transmitted to the court concerned.

Let this order be communicated to the learned court through FAX / e-mail.