Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 3995 Jhar
Judgement Date : 28 September, 2022
1 Cr.M.P. No. 2878 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2878 of 2021
Dhanjay Kumar Singh @ Dhananjay Kumar Singh @ Dhananjay Singh, son
of Sri Satyanarayan Singh, aged about 47 years, resident of 201, Girja
Apartment, Ramson Residency, Binay Vihar Colony, Khatal Road, Dhaiya,
Bachpan Public School, Kalyanpur, P.O. & P.S. Kanyanpur, District- Dhanbad
... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate
Mr. Raj Vardhan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C. to A.A.G.-II
For the Informant : Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, Advocate
-----
04/28.09.2022. I.A. No.4990 of 2022 has been filed for ignoring the surviving defect.
2. In view of the statement made in paragraph 6 of the said I.A., the
surviving defect is ignored.
3. Accordingly, I.A. No.4990 of 2022 stands disposed of.
4. Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and
Mr. Gaurav Raj, learned counsel for the State.
5. This petition has been filed for quashing of order taking cognizance
dated 06.07.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class,
Garhwa in Bhawnathpur P.S. Case No.234/2020, whereby, cognizance has
been taken under Section 304 (Part-II), 201 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the
court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Garhwa.
6. The case was lodged alleging therein that on 10.12.2020 at 07:45
a.m., Arvind Kumar Singh (deceased) along with his friend Govind Singh
had gone to a marriage at Bhawnathpur on his XUV vehicle along with other
friend Awadh Bihari Singh, Vinay Singh who had also accompanied him.
When Arvind Kumar Singh did not return from marriage then the informant
and his family members tried to find about Arvind Kumar Singh. Thereafter,
the informant came to know that in the marriage, guns were fired in the
night and one person got injured due to firing and he had been admitted in
Sadar Hospital, Daltonganj. It was further alleged that the informant along
with Vinit Pratap Singh went to the Hospital to identify the body of the
deceased and in the meantime the informant came to know that the vehicle
of Arvind Kumar Singh had been parked by somebody in the yard. Then the
informant tried to contact Awadh Bihari Singh through phone but he was
unable to reach him. The informant alleged that the deceased's friend
Awadh Bihari Singh, Vinay Singh and Dhananjay Singh did not inform about
the incident and took the deceased (Arvind Kumar Singh) to the hospital
and left him there unattended. On the basis of above written report,
Bhawnathpur P.S. Case No.234/2020 was registered.
7. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that there was no intention to death. The death is causing by
negligence and therefore Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code is
attracted although the learned court has taken cognizance under Section
304 (Part-II) of the Indian Penal Code and being aggrieved with that part
only, this petition has been filed. He further submits that the cognizance
was required to be taken under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. He
also submits that in the postmortem report, the Medical Officer opined that
the firearm injury are antimortem in nature cause by firearm, death is due
to haemorrhagic shock and as a result of firearm injury. The time of death is
16-24 hours from the time term of postmortem. There is allegation that the
petitioner has intentionally fired upon the deceased and Section 304
(Part-II) of the Indian Penal Code was added instead of Section 304-A of
the Indian Penal Code. On these grounds, that part of the order is bad in
law. He relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State through PS Lodhi Colony, New Delhi v. Sanjeev Nanda,
[(2012) 8 SCC 450].
8. Paragraph 38 of the said order reads as under:
"38.We may profitably deal with the definition of "reckless" as defined in The Law Lexicon, which reads as under:
"Reckless.--Characterized by the creation of a substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm to others and by a conscious (and sometimes deliberate) disregard for or indifference to that risk; heedless; rash. Reckless conduct is much more than mere negligence: it is a gross deviation from what a reasonable person would do. (Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Edn., 1999) 'Intention cannot exist without foresight, but foresight can exist without intention. For a man may foresee the possible or even probable consequences of his conduct and yet not desire them to occur; none the less if he persists on his course he knowingly runs the risk of bringing about the unwished result. To describe this state of mind the word "reckless" is the most appropriate. ...'"
9. On the other hand, Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh who appeared suo motu on
behalf of the informant submits that these are the subject matter of trial
and the learned court has rightly taken the cognizance under Section 304
(Part-II) of the Indian Penal Code, which has also been supported by the
learned counsel for the State.
10. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties, the Court has gone through the materials on the record and finds
that in the cognizance order, it has been recorded that during investigation
it was found that the petitioner opened fire from the pistol during the dance
function at the marriage and he had been warned by his friends several
times that as it was closed room he must not open fire as someone may get
hurt, but first time the petitioner opened fire with his gun and bullet hit the
window. Then Arvind Kumar Singh (deceased) asked and tried to stop the
petitioner but he fired second shot from his gun and it hit the deceased.
11. The accused having knowledge that his act was likely to cause death,
but had no intention to cause death or such bodily injury likely to cause
death, then the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
modified to Section 304 (Part-II) of the Indian Penal Code. A reference may
be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Bhagwan Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, [(2020) 14 SCC 184] . In this
judgment, the firing by accused in the marriage causing death of two
persons and injuries to three others was the subject matter before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the identical situation, firing made in the
marriage ceremony was the subject matter before the Delhi High Court in
Nehru Jain v. State NCT of Delhi, (2005 SCC OnLine Del 47) . Moreover,
only cognizance has been taken against the petitioner and he can prove his
case by way of pleading the evidence, so far as the argument of Mr.
Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is concerned.
12. In the case relied by Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has come to that finding after
considering the evidence led before the trial court. Thus, the judgment
relied by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not helping the
petitioner.
13. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. However, the observation
made in this order shall not come into the way of trial and the trial court will
proceed on its own merit.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!