Dismissed

Nijam Ansari v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 Aug 2024Cr.Rev./191/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against conviction for rash driving causing two deaths. The court found concrete findings of rash and negligent driving supported by evidence; held contributory negligence inapplicable in criminal law and sentence adequate, dismissing the revision.

What the court decided

AI extract

Nijam Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Criminal Revision No.191 of 2017

¶3

Nijam Ansari @ Nejam Ansari, son of Amjad Mian, resident of Village-Nindir, P.O. and P.S.-Latehar, District-Latehar

¶4

…… Petitioner

¶5

V The State of Jharkhand For the Petitioner	ersus ……Opposite Party ….. : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Advocate Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate
For the State	: Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, Addl.P.P ----------

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶8

-----

¶9

JUDGMENT

¶10

C.A.V.On 21.06.2024 Pronounced On:14/ 08/2024

¶11

The instant Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Latehar in Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2023, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.06.2013 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in G.R. No.262 of 2011 whereby the petitioner was held guilty for the offence punishable under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC and awarded the sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each under section 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code respectively and he was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under section 338

¶12

and 304A of the Indian Penal Code respectively and all the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently has been affirmed.

¶13

The factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that on 24.05.2011 at about 5 P.M, the informant along with other passengers proceeded from village Lavarpur on a tempo bearing Reg. No.JH03C-4917 to attain a marriage ceremony. On the next day at about 6:00 A.M, they were returning by the same tempo to village Dadeya and reached near village Tolabarbwadih at about 7 AM, meanwhile due to rash and negligent driving of the said tempo by the driver at a turn, the said tempo turned turtle causing severe injuries to the some passengers and two of them died in course of treatment at Sadar Hospital, Latehar.

¶14

In connection with above accident, Chandwa P.S. Case No.50 of 2011 was registered for the offence under section 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the said tempo bearing Reg. No. JH03C-4917. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner, who faced the trial and has been convicted and sentenced as stated above.

¶15

Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of confirmation of the conviction and sentenced of the petitioner by the Revisional Court, it has been argued by the learned counsel

¶16

Cr. Rev. No.191 of 2017

¶17

¶18

for the petitioner that as many as 7 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to substantiate the accusation levelled against the petitioner and out of them, P.W.1 and PW 2 are doctors, P.W. 4 and PW 5 are co-passengers, P.W 6 is the informant, P.W 7 is the Investigating Officer of this case while P.W 3 is hearsay witness.

¶19

Apart from the above oral evidence following documentary evidences have been exhibited:

¶20

Ext.1- Post-mortem report

¶21

Ext.1/1- The injury report of Deepak Oraon

¶22

Ext.2-Signature of the informant on fardbayan Ext.2/1-Signature of the Investigating Officer, who proved the Fardbeyan

¶23

Ext.3- Formal FIR

¶24

Ext.4-M.V.I. Report of the offending vehicle.

¶25

It is further submitted that the oral testimony of the witnesses are not consisted to each other and suffers from material contradictions rendering themselves unreliable. The real fact is that about 10-12 passengers have forcefully boarded on a small tempo in spite of protest by the petitioner, due to which the vehicle could not turn smoothly and the said tempo turned over the road. There is no evidence at all showing any rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner.

¶26

Cr. Rev. No.191 of 2017

¶27

¶28

Learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court has failed to properly appreciate the above admitted position disclosed by the witnesses examined in this case and arrived at wrong conclusion and the sentence awarded to the petitioner is also disproportionate to his guilt. Learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court without recording any special reasons has failed to extend the benefit of Section 4 of Probation Offending Act, 1958 to the petitioner, hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside allowing this revision.

¶29

On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P. has vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order judgment and order, hence, this revision is fit to be dismissed.

¶30

I have given anxious consideration to the respective argument of both the parties and also gone through the impugned judgment and order passed in this case. It appears that there is concrete findings of the fact supported with evidence led by the prosecution about rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the petitioner which resulted in the unfortunate accident causing death of two passengers and injuries to others. The plea of the petitioner that the vehicle was overloaded, all the passengers voluntarily boarded on the said tempo beyond its capacity, which was the root cause for happening this incident could not be sustained as the principle of contributory negligence is not

¶31

Cr. Rev. No.191 of 2017

¶32

¶33

applicable under criminal law. It is a case where two persons have died due to accident and others have severely injured. The quantum of sentence also appears to be adequate. In view of above aspect of the case and reasons, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order calling for any interference. Hence, this revision appears to be devoid of merit and fit to be dismissed.

¶34

10.Accordingly, this revision is dismissed.

¶35

11.Interim order is, hereby, vacated.

¶36

12.The petitioner, who is on bail, is directed to surrender before the

¶37

concerned trial court and receive remaining period of sentence.

¶38

13.Let the copy of this order along with record of trial court be sent

¶39

back to the court concerned for information and needful.

¶40

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶41

Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi Date:14 /08/2024 Pappu/- N.A.F.R.

¶42

Cr. Rev. No.191 of 2017

¶43

Nijam Ansari v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Nijam Ansari v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Nisar Alias Dablu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Md. Faiz Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bineshwar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shankar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Lal Mani Devi Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Md Kalim Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.