Patna High Court
Bindeshwar Mahto @ Bindeshwari MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already served, ordering release upon payment of the fine.
Summary
The petitioner, Bindeshwar Mahto, was convicted under IPC sections 279, 338 and 304A for a fatal accident caused by alleged rash driving of a tempo on 19 May 2008, resulting in the death of the informant's father and injuries to others. The trial court sentenced him to three months, six months and one and a half years respectively, with fines, all to run concurrently, and the appellate court affirmed the conviction. In the revision petition, the petitioner argued evidentiary contradictions, lack of medical examination, and a tyre burst cause, seeking set‑aside of the conviction or at least a reduction of sentence. The State contended that the evidence supported the conviction. The High Court, noting that the petitioner had already served about 1 year and 4 months of the total 1 year 6 months sentence and finding little merit in the revision, reduced the sentence to the period already served and ordered his release subject to payment of the imposed fine. Consequently, the revision petition was disposed and the petitioner was released.
Issues considered
- Whether the conviction under Sections 279, 338 and 304A IPC is sustainable in view of alleged contradictions in prosecution evidence and lack of medical examination.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to set‑aside of the conviction or a reduction of sentence on the ground of time already served.
- Whether the fine imposed must be paid before release.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 279, 304A, 338
Subjects
- rash driving
- negligence
- criminal revision
- IPC 279
- IPC 338
- IPC 304A
- sentence reduction
- fine payment
- conviction
- appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.969 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-244 Year-2008 Thana- ARARIA District-
Araria
===================================================
Bindeshwar Mahto @ Bindeshwari Mahto Son of Dashrath Mahto
Resident of village -Radhanagar Garbanaili police station- kasba
District- purnea
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Munna Kumar son of Late Dinanath Bahardar Resident of Village-
Nayanagar Ward no. 9, Gauri chack, Ps- Araria, Dist- Araria
... ... Respondent/s
===================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ramesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s: Md. Matloob Rab, APP
===================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-02-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned counsel for the State.
2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred by
the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 26.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-4th, Araria in Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2014
whereby and whereunder the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 25.06.2014 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate-1st Class, Araria in Araria P.S. Case No. 244 of 2008
has been affirmed by which the petitioner has been convicted for
the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338, 304(A) of the
IPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a
period of three months for the offences under Section 279 of the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.969 of 2024 dt.09-02-2026
2/4
IPC and fine of Rs.500 and further sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for a period of six months and fine of Rs.500/- for
the offences under Section 338 of the IPC. The petitioner was
further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of 1 ½ years for the offences under Section 304(A) of the IPC
and fine of Rs.1500/- and was further sentenced to undergo
further simple imprisonment for a period of two months for
default of payment of fine. All the sentences were ordered to run
concurrently.
3. As per prosecution case, on 19.05.2008, when the
informant hired a tempo and went to Bhatta Bazar for
purchasing fish and while returning from there, the tempo met
with an accident due to rash driving and negligence of the tempo
driver. The father of the informant, the informant and other
ladies sustained injuries in the said accident and subsequently
the father of the informant succumbed to the injuries. The
petitioner is said to be the driver of the alleged tempo.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the impugned orders of the learned Courts below are bad in law
as well as on facts. There is material contradiction in the
evidence of prosecution witnesses who are the close relatives of
the informant and are interested witnesses. Further, the doctor
has also not been examined. The learned courts below did not
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.969 of 2024 dt.09-02-2026
3/4
consider the fact that the accident occurred due to burst of tyre of
the tempo. The learned courts below also did not consider the
cross examination of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses.
The learned trial court did not examine the evidence of the
witnesses minutely and came to an erroneous finding and hence,
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the
courts below are not sustainable. The learned counsel further
submits that the petitioner is in custody since 26.10.2024, i.e. for
1 year and 4 months. He has no criminal antecedent. Therefore,
it is prayed by the learned counsel that the judgments and orders
of the learned courts below may be set aside and the revision
petition may be allowed. If the Court is not inclined, then in that
case the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to
the period already undergone by him.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that appellate
court rightly upheld the order of the trial court as there is specific
allegation that due to the rash driving and negligence of the
petitioner, the vehicle met with an accident in which the father of
the informant died and the informant and other ladies sustained
injuries. The prosecution witnesses have supported the
prosecution case in their deposition.
6. Perused the record.
7. Having regard to the rival submission of the parties
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.969 of 2024 dt.09-02-2026
4/4
and on perusal of the judgment of the learned appellate court and
the learned trial court, considering the fact that the petitioner has
already suffered incarceration for a period of about 1 year 4
months out of total sentence of 1 year 6 months, finding not
much merit in the case, it would be in fitness of things that the
petitioner be released by reducing his sentence to the period
already undergone by him. Accordingly, it is ordered that the
petitioner will be released from custody forthwith subject to
verification of the payment of fine imposed in terms of the
appellate court's order, if not required in any other matter. If the
fine has not been paid, the petitioner will be released only after
the payment of fine.
8. With the aforesaid modification in the order of
sentence, the present criminal revision petition stands disposed
of.
9. Office is directed to return the LCR forthwith.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Anuradha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 10.02.2026
Transmission Date 10.02.2026
Checking your session…