2026:JHHC:21533 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1497 of 2015 -------- Md. Asraf Khan @ Asraf, S/o. Late Nazir Khan, R/o. Chalchaliadhora, P.O. & P.S.- Jharia , Dist.- Dhanbad, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opp. Party -------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate : Mr. Deepak Sahu, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P. Judgment C.A.V. On: 24th June, 2026 Pronounced On: 20/07/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. 2. Instant Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment dated 04.09.2015 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 134 of 2015 by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the offence under Section 279 & 304A of the I.P.C. passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in G.R. No. 1060 of 2005 / T. R. No. 60 of 2015 arising out of Jharia (Tisra) P.S. Case No. 164 of 2005 has been upheld and the petitioner has been directed to undergo R.I. for 2 years alongwith the fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 304A of the I.P. C. only with default stipulation. Factual Matrix:- 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that on 12.04.2005 at about 11:15 A.M., informant’s wife had gone to pray in a temple 2026:JHHC:21533 2 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1497 of 2015) situated opposite side to his house across the road. When she was returning after offering pooja in the temple, in the meantime, a Dumper bearing registration no. BR17G-0692 being rashly and negligently driven dashed wife of the informant due to which she sustained injuries and succumbed to her injuries. 4. On the basis of written report of informant, Jharia (Tisra) P.S. Case No. 164 of 2005 was registered for the offence under Sections 279 & 304A of the I.P.C. After conclusion of investigation, charge- sheet was submitted against the above named sole accused. 5. The accused (Md. Asraf Khan @ Asraf) denied from the charge and claimed to be tried. After conclusion Trial, impugned judgment was passed by the learned Trial Court and upheld by the learned Appellate Court which has been assailed in this Revision. 6. In the course of trial, altogether, 08 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. I. P.W.-1 Ajay Kumar Tiwari (Informant) II. P.W.-2 Mukesh Kumar Sao III. P.W.-3 Sikandar Nishad IV. P.W.-4 Ganesh Prasad V. P.W.-5 Ramji Paswan VI. P.W.-6 Nanku Sao VII. P.W.-7 Prem Chandra Arya VIII. P.W.-8 Dr. Shailendra Kumar Apart from oral evidence, following documentary evidence has been adduced by the prosecution:- 2026:JHHC:21533 3 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1497 of 2015) I. Exhibit- 1 Signature of PW-1 Ajay Kumar Tiwari on fardbeyan II. Exhibit-2 Fardbeyan III. Exhibit-3 Postmortem report 7. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. The case of the defence is denial from the occurrence and false implication. 8. The learned Trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence available on record both oral as well as documentary recorded the finding that the cause of death of the deceased has been proved by injuries in vehicle accident. The eye witnesses of the occurrence have fully corroborated the prosecution story and nothing has been explained by the accused except denial from the occurrence. Accordingly, the accused (Md. Asraf Khan @ Asraf) was held guilty for the offence under Section 279 & 304A of the I.P.C. and passed sentence only for the offence under Section 304A of the I.P.C. 9. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, Criminal Appeal No. 134/2015 was preferred by the petitioner (Md. Asraf Khan @ Asraf) and the same was heard and decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, whereby the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the accused was upheld, which has been assailed in this revision. Submission on behalf of the Petitioner:- 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court has failed to consider that the witnesses of the case have given 2026:JHHC:21533 4 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1497 of 2015) contradictory statement with each other regarding genesis, manner and place of occurrence, which has not been conclusively proved by the prosecution. The investigation officer of this case was neither examined nor could he prove the exact place of occurrence, which has got prejudice in part the defence. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate court has failed to properly evaluate the evidence of witnesses in the law of material contradiction appearing in their cross-examination. Hence, the learned court below has arrived at wrong conclusion on conviction of petitioner. It is further submitted that the postmortem report of the deceased has also not been discussed by the learned Trial Court which clearly shows that no vehicle injury was sustained by the deceased and there is all probability that the deceased might have sustained internal injury due to fall on the occasion of Chhat Puja. Therefore, impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the petitioner suffers from serious error of law and liable to be set aside allowing this revision. Submission on behalf of the State:- 11. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and has submitted that there is concurrent finding by the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court about guilt of the petitioner, who had rashly and negligently driven the vehicle and dashed on the deceased. There is no reason to take different view from the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court and this revision, being devoid of merit, is fit to be dismissed. 2026:JHHC:21533 5 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1497 of 2015) Analysis, discussion and reasons:- 12. I have gone through the record of the case alongwith the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both the parties. 13. It appears from the evidence of witnesses, namely PW-2 Mukesh Kumar Sao, PW-3 Sikandar Nishad, PW-4 Ganesh Prasad and PW-5 Ramji Paswan that they have supported the prosecution case. The occurrence took place on 12.04.2005 at about 10:00 to 10:30 P.M. when they all were present near Kali Mandir, Golden Pahari and a dumper being rashly and negligently driven dashed the Fuljahari Devi, wife of Nanku Sao PW-6. She was taken to hospital, where she was declared as brought dead. PW-6 Nanku Sao is the informant of this case. He has stated that his wife had gone to Kali Mandir to offer her prayers. On hulla, he went to the place of occurrence and saw that a BCCL truck had dashed his wife outside the Mandir and driver of the said vehicle fled away from the place of occurrence. He took his wife to hospital where she was declared as brought dead. He is not the eye witness of the incident. PW-8 Dr. Shailendra Kumar, is the doctor who had performed post mortem on the dead body of the deceased. He found two abrasions and two lacerated wounds on the person. Several bones were fractured. He has further stated that deceased died due to injuries which can be sustained in road vehicle accident. PW-7 Prem Chandra Arya is the investigating officer of this case. He took charge of investigation on 16.04.2025. He proved the place of 2026:JHHC:21533 6 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1497 of 2015) occurrence but not the exact place of occurrence. Subsequently, he was transferred and handed over the charge of investigation to the Officer-in-charge. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has not recorded the fardbeyan. The Officer-in-charge had recorded the fardbeyan. He had seized the vehicle at the place of occurrence. He had no arrested anybody. 14. In view of above discussion and reasons, it appears that that the prosecution witnesses have categorically supported the prosecution case. Those witnesses who have categorically stated that they are the eyewitness, have corroborated each other on the date, time, place and manner of occurrence. The occurrence took place on 12.04.2005 between 10:00 to 10:30 A.M. The wife of the informant had come out of the temple, when a dumper dashed her. 15. It further appears that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have minutely discussed and evaluated overall testimony of the prosecution while recording the findings about the guilt of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any such glaring legal points to take a different view from the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court. It appears that reasoned decision has been passed by the learned Trial Court and the same has been upheld by the learned Appellate Court. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or infirmity calling for any interference in the impugned judgment of conviction under Sections 279 & 304A of the I.P.C., passed by the learned the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court. 2026:JHHC:21533 7 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1497 of 2015) 16. So far the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner i.e., R.I. for 2 years alongwith the fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation is concerned, it appears that the occurrence is of year 2005 and the informant had filed Pre Litigation Case No. 1267 of 2005 in permanent Lok Adalat, Dhanbad, wherein compensation of Rs. 87,000/- has been awarded to the informant Nanku Sao. It further appears that the petitioner has remained in custody only for eleven days. 17. In view of the above, the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court to the petitioner is hereby reduced to the extent that instead of undergoing substantive sentence of imprisonment of two years, the petitioner is hereby directed to undergo R.I. for 06 months only. The custody period already undergone by the petitioner will be set off in the sentence. 18. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is dismissed with modification in sentence. 19. Pending I.A.(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 20. The petitioner is on bail. His bail bond is hereby cancelled. 21. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the concerned Trial Court within two months from the date of this judgment and receive the remaining sentence awarded by this Court and undergo the remaining period of imprisonment, failing which, the learned Trial Court shall take all coercive steps in securing the attendance of the petitioner and sending him under proper conviction warrant to jail custody for undergoing the sentence awarded to him. 2026:JHHC:21533 8 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1497 of 2015) 22. Let a copy of this order be sent through FAX to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful. 23. Let the trial court records also be sent back immediately to the concerned Trial Court. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated:20/07/2026 Rahul/NAFR Uploaded on 21/07/2026