Allowed

Md Tahir Qazi Alias Md Tahir v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 Aug 2023Cr.Rev./997/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand heard a criminal revision against convictions for rash and negligent driving causing death. Finding procedural lapses and lack of evidence on proximate cause, the court quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned courts below are set aside and the appeal was dismissed.

Md Tahir Qazi Alias Md Tahir Vs The State… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 997 of 2016

¶2

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. ---------

¶3

05/01.08.2023

¶4

Heard the parties.

¶5

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, 1^st 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.

¶6

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.

¶7

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.

¶8

-2-

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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,

¶14

-3-

¶15

who had expired on the way to the hospital.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶21

Jay/-

Md Tahir Qazi Alias Md Tahir v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md Tahir Qazi Alias Md Tahir v. The 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

Dubai Mardi Vs State of Jharkhand

Ajay Singh Raj Vs the State of Jharkhand

Birsa Munda And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Most Fatima Khatoon Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief Secretry And Ors.

Santosh Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Suresh Kumar Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand