Santosh Kumar Ravidas vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 158 Jhar

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                     Cr. Revision No. 80 of 2020
                                                  With
                                           I.A. No.5274 of 2021
                                           ....

               Santosh Kumar Ravidas                             ....    Petitioner
                                           Versus
              The State of Jharkhand                             .... Opp. Party
                                           ....
               CORAM:           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

               For the Petitioner              : Mr. Pradeep Kr. Prasad, Adv.
               For the State                   : Mr. Suraj Mohan, APP
                                               ....

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

.....

09/25.01.2022 The instant revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 04.09.2019 passed by the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribag in Criminal Appeal No.82 of 2018, affirming the judgment and order of sentence dated 16.05.2018 passed by the court of C.J.M., Hazaribag in connection with G.R. No.873 of 2009 corresponding to T.R. No.714 of 2018, whereby the petitioner has been convicted of the offence under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC and sentenced for S.I. of six months for each offence with a fine of Rs.500/- for both offences, further S.I. for one year for the offence under Sections 304A and 338 of the IPC with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 15 days.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP. The basis of conviction is only the opinionated statement of the witness. Although the vehicle in question was examined by the M.V.I. and report has also been obtained by the Investigating Officer but the same has not been brought on record for the reason best known to the prosecution.

Thus, from the above analysis, this Court finds that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the factum that the reason for accident is rash and negligent driving of the driver/revisionist. In the absence of any material facts suggesting the rash driving on the part of driver/revisionist, the conviction under Sections 279/ 337/ 304A and 338 is not sustainable as it is the basic ingredients.

In view of above discussion, the revision stands allowed. I.A. No.5274 of 2021 stands disposed of.

The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case.

Office shall prepare the Release Order of the petitioner and send it to the court concerned.

The judgment in separate sheet shall follow shortly.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Shahid/