Sarfuddin Khan vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3072 Jhar

                                           1




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                             Cr. Revision No. 813 of 2012

                     Sarfuddin Khan                         ...    ...      Petitioner
                                         Versus
                     The State of Jharkhand          ...       ...          Opp. Party
                                         ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

Through: Video Conferencing

10/24.08.2021

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is present.

2. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State Mr. Shekhar Sinha is also present.

3. Heard in part.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while advancing his arguments, has submitted that both the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below are perverse and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. He submits that the petitioner was charged for offence under Section 279 IPC as well as Section 304-A of IPC, but was acquitted by the learned court below for offence under Section 279 of IPC as the same was not proved. The reason for acquittal was that none of the witnesses had stated as to what was the speed of tanker and there was no technical report by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, the competent authority. The learned counsel submits that there is no evidence to show that there was rash or negligent driving by the petitioner. Learned counsel has also submitted that there is serious dispute as to whether the petitioner was the driver of the offending vehicle or not, as the petitioner was never apprehended on the spot and was subsequently apprehended by the police. The learned counsel submits that the basic ingredients of rash or negligent driving for offence under Section 304-A of IPC is not satisfied in the present case and

accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 304- A of IPC cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1998) 8 SCC 493 as well as AIR 1972 SC 221.

6. The learned counsel for the State has sought adjournment to examine the matter further as to whether there is any evidence on record regarding rash and negligent driving by the petitioner.

7. Post this case on 31.08.2021.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul