Sarfuddin Khan vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3184 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 11/31.08.2021

1. Heard Mr. Ranish Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has already advanced his arguments on the last occasion by indicating that the petitioner having been acquitted for offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, could not have been convicted for offence under Section 304-A of IPC in view of the fact that the rash and negligent driving was not proved, which is a common ingredient of offence under both the sections. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment passed by this Court in Cr. Revision No. 795/2014 decided on 24.08.2020.

4. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel has submitted that the present offence is the first offence of the petitioner and he has remained in custody for some time in connection with the present case during the pendency of the present revision petition. He has also submitted that on the date of conviction i.e., 21.04.2012, the petitioner was 59 years of age and accordingly, the present age of the petitioner is about 68 years. He also submits that the date of incident is 07.11.2004 and accordingly, more than 17 years have elapsed from the date of the incident. He submits that considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, some sympathetic view may be taken and the sentence be modified.

5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that it is not in dispute that the learned trial court has acquitted the petitioner for offence under Section 279 of IPC and has convicted him for offence under Section 304-A of IPC. He has also referred to paragraph-16 of the trial court's judgment, wherein the learned trial court held the petitioner guilty for offence under Section 304-A of IPC causing accident and death of the victim on account of negligent driving the vehicle and acquitted the petitioner for offence under Section 279 of the IPC, as there was no evidence on record for proving the speed of the said vehicle.

6. Arguments are concluded.

7. Judgment is reserved.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul