Veena Devi @ Veena Mahakud vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 05.04.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2010, whereby the appeal preferred by the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 was dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.09.2010 passed by the learned CJM, Chaibasa in G.R. Case No. 354 of 2005 (T.R. No. 28 of 2010), whereby the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 were found guilty for offence punishable under Section 304-A/34 of IPC, has been sustained.

However, the learned appellate court while dismissing the appeal modified the sentence to the effect that the sentence of one year S.I. awarded by the learned trial court has been converted in lieu of fine of Rs.15,000/-each and the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 were directed to pay the same before the learned trial court, which shall be paid to the informant/legal heir of the deceased victim as compensation.

The petitioner before this Court is the informant/wife of the deceased person who met with an accident in course of cleaning the well of opposite party nos. 2 to 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that her husband succumbed to injuries and lost his life due to utter negligence of the opposite party nos. 2 to 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that though the petitioner is not of the view that opposite party nos. 2 to 5 must undergo custody rather she wants that the compensation which has been awarded by the learned appellate court in lieu of sentence is very low. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that on protest he has not received the amount of Rs. 60,000/- also from the lower court and contended that the amount of compensation may be enhanced so that some relief be granted to the petitioner/wife of the victim.

Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 submits that as per the direction of the appellate court Rs. 60,000/- has already been deposited before the learned trial court and the same can be withdrawn by the petitioner. He has further submitted that the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 are very poor person but if this Court directs the opposite parties then the same will be complied with utmost respect.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order including the LCR, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order deserves to be modified to the effect that the compensation which was directed to be paid by the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 must be enhanced.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the situation of the petitioner, the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 are hereby directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- each i.e. Rs. 80,000/- over and above the amount which has been directed to be paid by the learned appellate court.

In view of the enhancement and modification in the impugned order the petitioner will get Rs. 1,40,000/- in total. It is clarified that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- (Rs.35,000 each) shall be paid before the learned trial court and the same shall be given to the informant forthwith.

During course of argument, the counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 has submitted that they have already deposited Rs. 60,000/-(Rs. 15,000/-) each. Be that as it may, the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 if already paid Rs. 15,000/- each then they will pay the balance amount of Rs. 20,000/-each within a period of 3 months from the date of this order before the learned trial court and the entire amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- shall be paid to the informant/petitioner as compensation.

It is made clear that if the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 does not pay the amount as stipulated hereinabove then they will serve S.I. of 3 months each.

With the aforesaid directions and modifications, the instant revision application is allowed and disposed of.

Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.