Jharkhand High Court
Md. Tahir Qazi @ Md. Tahir vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 997 of 2016
---------
Md. Tahir Qazi @ Md. Tahir ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
---------
For the Petitioner : Ms. Satya Satakshi, Amicus Curiae
For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl.P.P.
---------
05/01.08.2023
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has filed this criminal revision application against
the judgment dated 27.06.2016, passed by Sri Sanjay Kumar No.1,
learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal
No.92/2014, whereby and wherein the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-VIII, Dhanbad, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.06.2014,
passed by Sri Ajay Kumar Guria, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Dhanbad in G.R. Case No.2429/2007, holding the petitioner guilty of
offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code and
thereby sentencing him to undergo S.I. for six months along with fine of
Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code
and S.I. for one year for the offence under Section 304A of the Indian
Penal Code along with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine,
he was further directed to undergo S.I. for 15 days.
The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of
the informant Ramesh Kumbhkar, alleging therein that on 07.08.2007 at
about 7:00 am, his grandson namely Sunil Kumbhkar aged about 3 ½
years was playing outside his house, when a tempo bearing registration
No.JH10M-6162, being rashly and negligently driven dashed his
grandson due to which he sustained injuries. The injured was taken to
hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. The petitioner has been
named as the driver of the offending vehicle.
Prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. On
the basis of the evidence available on the record, both the learned Trial
court as well as the learned Appellate Court have come to a concurrent
finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner.
The informant Ramesh Kumbhkar has been examined as P.W.8.
He has supported the allegation as made in this fardbeyan and stated
that on 07.08.2007 at about 7:00 am, a tempo bearing registration
No.JH10M-6162, which was being rashly and negligently driven by the
petitioner dashed his grandson Sunil Kumbhkar due to which he
succumbed to his injuries. He has claimed to identify the petitioner in
the dock. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the driver of the
offending vehicle lost control of the vehicle as it was being driven at a
high speed. Other prosecution witnesses have corroborated the
statement of the informant Ramesh Kumbhkar P.W.8 and all have stated
that the deceased Sunil Kumbhkar died in the accident after being
dashed by a tempo bearing registration No. JH10M-6162. They have
stated that the vehicle was being driven at a high speed by the petitioner.
The doctor, who has performed the postmortem on the dead body
of the deceased has not been examined in this case and as such, the
postmortem report has not been adduced in evidence.
None of the witnesses have stated that offending vehicle was
being driven rashly and negligently by the petitioner. The Investigating
Officer has not been examined in this case, so as to prove the place of
occurrence whether the accident had taken place by the side or in the
middle of the road. The possibility of the deceased, who was a child
aged about 3 ½ years, venturing on the middle of the road, due to which
accident could have taken place cannot be ruled out.
In order to prove its case under Sections 279 and 304A of the
Indian Penal Code, prosecution has to show that accident had taken
place due to rash and negligent driving by the petitioner. It is true that
accident has taken place due to negligence, but whether the accident
took place due to negligence of the deceased or due to rash and
negligent driving by the petitioner cannot be ascertained.
Non examination of the doctor, who had performed the
postmortem on the dead body of the deceased has resulted in the failure
to ascertain the cause of death of the deceased. It cannot be said that the
prosecution has proved that the rash or negligent act of the petitioner
was direct, immediate and proximate to cause death of the deceased,
who had expired on the way to the hospital.
In view of the aforesaid facts. I am of the opinion that prosecution
has not been able to prove its case against the petitioner beyond all
reasonable doubt.
This Criminal Revision Application is allowed. The judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned court below is
set aside.
Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
Before parting I would like to record my appreciation for Ms.
Satya Satakshi, learned Amicus Curiae, who has very ably assisted this
Court in adjudicating this case. Member Secretary, JHALSA is directed
to pay Rs.5,000/- to the learned Amicus Curiae for the services rendered
by her.
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
Jay/-
