Allowed

Binod Kumar Sao Binod Kumar Sah v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC19 Jul 2023Cr.Rev./11/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision against a conviction for dangerous driving causing death. The court held the prosecution failed to prove rash and negligent driving due to lack of postmortem report, medical evidence, and specific evidence linking the driver to the incident.

What did the court decide?

The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is set aside.

Binod Kumar Sao Binod Kumar Sah Vs State of… — Motor Accident Claims | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 11 of 2011

¶2

Binod Kumar Sao @ Binod Kumar Sah ... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party --------CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶3

For the Petitioner : Ms. Neelam Kumari, Amicus Curiae For the State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, A.P.P. ---------

¶4

12/19.07.2023

¶5

Heard the parties.

¶6

The petitioner has filed this criminal revision application against the judgment dated 07.03.2007, passed by Sri Amitabh Kumar, learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribag in Criminal Appeal No.95 of 2006, whereby and wherein the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribag, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.07.2006, passed by Sri Dharmendra Kumar Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Hazaribag in G.R. No.80/2000 arising out of Mandu P.S. Case No.08 of 2000, holding the petitioner guilty of offences under Sections 279, 337, 304A of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for six months each for the offences under Sections 279 and 337 of the I.P.C. and imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 304A of the I.P.C. All the sentences were ordered to be run-concurrently.

¶7

The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant namely Jagdish Thakur alleging therein that on 13.01.2000 at about 4:00 PM, his elder brother Ram Chandra Hajam was going with his brother-in-law Raju Hazam on his scooter bearing registration No.BR-136355 to Mandu. When he reached near 20 Miles Bazar at NH 33, a trekker being rashly and negligently driven dashed scooter due to which his brother Ram Chandra Hazam died at the spot, while Raju Hazam sustained injury.

¶8

In order to prove its case, prosecution has adduced oral evidence. Both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner.

¶9

From the perusal of the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it transpires that Raju Hazam one of the injured has been examined as

¶10

-2-

¶11

P.W.1. He has stated that on 13.01.2000 between 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM, he was travelling with his brother-in-law Ram Chandra Hazam on his scooter, when they reached near 20 mile Bazar at NH33, a trekker bearing registration No.BR-13P-3738, which was travelling at high speed dashed the scooter due to which his brother-in-law died at the spot and he also sustained injury. He has stated that he had seen the driver and he has claimed to identify him in the dock. He has been cross-examined at length. He has stated that the scooter was travelling at the speed of 30-40 KM per hour, whereas the trekker was travelling at the speed of 80-90 KM per hour. He has further stated that he lost his consciousness after 4-5 minutes of the occurrence.

¶12

Baleshwar Dubey P.W.2 is the Investigating Officer in this case. He has proved the place of occurrence, which was near 20 miles, Bazar at NH33. This road runs between Ramgarh and Hazaribag. At paragraph-3 he has stated that there was head on collision between the offending vehicle and the scooter. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he cannot say whether deceased was wearing helmet while driving the scooter.

¶13

Prosecution has not examined the doctor, who had performed the postmortem of the deceased. Prosecution has also not examined the doctor, who had examined the injured Raju Hazam. In the absence of postmortem report and medical evidence the fact that the deceased Ram Chandra Hazam had died in road vehicular accident and the fact that Raju Hazam has sustained grievous injury in the accident at claimed by the prosecution cannot be substantiated.

¶14

Raju Hazam P.W.1 has not stated that the petitioner was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. He has stated that vehicle was travelling at high speed 80-90 KM per hour. The place of occurrence is on NH33, it is normal for the vehicle to be travelling on a Highway at a high speed. Specific evidence has to be adduced by the prosecution to show that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle.

¶15

From the statement of the Investigating Officer, it is evident that there was head on collision between both the tacker and scooter, which

¶16

-3-

¶17

goes on to show that the scooter was driven by the deceased in the middle of the road.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the petitioner that he has caused accidental death of the deceased Ram Chandra Hazam and caused grievous injury to the injured Raju Hazam. Accordingly, I further come to a finding that both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have come an erroneous finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner.

¶19

This Criminal Revision Application is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is set aside.

¶20

Pending I.A., if any, also stand disposed of.

¶21

Before parting I would like to record my appreciation for Ms. Neelam Kumari, learned Amicus Curiae, who has very ably assisted this Court during the hearing of this case. Member Secretary, JHALSA is directed to pay Rs.3,500/- to the learned Amicus Curiae for the services rendered by her.

¶22

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶23

Jay/-

Binod Kumar Sao Binod Kumar Sah v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binod Kumar Sao Binod Kumar Sah v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nandan Kumar Yadav Nandan Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Farhat Ara Alias Dolly Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prabha Shankar Dubey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunil Kumar Modak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mohan Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prakash Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Nandan Kumar Yadav  Nandan Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Farhat Ara Alias Dolly Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prabha Shankar Dubey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sunil Kumar Modak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mohan Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prakash Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nandan Kumar Yadav Nandan Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand