2026:JHHC:21543 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1441 of 2015 -------- Salim Khan, S/o. Md. Manobar Khan, R/o. Kamdara, P.O. & P.S.- Kamdara, Dist.- Gumla, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opp. Party -------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, 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 15.05.2015 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 41 of 2011 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Gumla, whereby and whereunder, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the offence under Section 304A of the I.P.C. passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gumla in G.R. No. 727 of 2006 / T. R. No. 1240 of 2011 has been upheld and the petitioner has been directed to undergo S.I. for 01 year. Factual Matrix:- 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that on 18.08.2006 at about 6:30 A.M., the informant was coming with his wife Lilawati Guria by a Jeep bearing registration no. JH01B-1911, on which near about 8-10 passengers were also travelling. It is alleged that driver of the jeep was driving the jeep very rashly and negligently. On the way, the informant had told him to drive slow still he drove very 2026:JHHC:21543 2 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1441 of 2015) negligently. When the jeep reach near village Bakutoli at about 7:45 A.M., suddenly, the jeep turned down into a ditch due to which the passengers sustained injuries and wife of the informant namely Lilawati Guria collapsed and succumbed to her injuries. 4. On the basis of information, an F.I.R. being Kamdara P.S. Case No. 49 of 2006 for the offence under Sections 279 & 304A of the I.P.C. was registered. After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the above named sole accused. 5. The petitioner denied from the charges and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of Trial, impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence was passed by the learned Trial Court and has been upheld by the learned Appellate Court, which has been assailed in this Revision. 6. In the course of trial, altogether, 09 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. I. P.W.-1 Titus Guria (Informant) II. P.W.-2 Anul Munda III. P.W.-3 Unmalan Topno IV. P.W.-4 Marium Topno V. P.W.-5 Markas Bhengra VI. P.W.-6 David Topo VII. P.W.-7 Tete Topno VIII. P.W.-8 Ram Harish Nirala (Investigating Officer) IX. P.W.-9 Dr. Saurabh Prasad Apart from oral evidence, following documentary evidence has been adduced by the prosecution:- 2026:JHHC:21543 3 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1441 of 2015) I. Exhibit- 1 Signature of PW-1 Titus Guria on fardbeyan II. Exhibit-2 Inquest report III. Exhibit-3 Postmortem report 7. Other the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. The case of the defence is that he was not driving the jeep rashly and negligently rather in a very moderate speed and due to rain water on the road, the driver could not notice the ditch and the vehicle suddenly turned turtled in spite of taking all precautions and applying brake. Admittedly, there were 15 passengers in the said jeep but except the deceased, no other passengers have sustained any injury which also indicates that there was no rash and negligent driving at the relevant time of accident. 8. The learned Trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence available on record both oral as well as documentary recorded the finding and held the petitioner guilty for the offence under Sections 279 & 304A of the I.P.C. and passed sentence as stated above. 9. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, Criminal Appeal No. 41/2011 was preferred by the petitioner and the same was heard and decided by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Gumla, 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 have failed to appreciate that the prosecution has not been able to prove the 2026:JHHC:21543 4 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1441 of 2015) rash and negligent driving of the vehicle at the relevant time of accident. It is admitted by the prosecution witnesses that due to rain water, the road was flooded and suddenly the jeep came into a ditch on the road and turned over, while it was being driven at a moderate speed taking all precautions about the safety of the passengers. It is further submitted that the victims of the accident have been granted monetary compensation in the case instituted under Motor Vehicle Accident Claim. The petitioner has deposited the fine amount and he has also remained in custody for 20 days. No site place was prepared by the investigating officer describing the place of occurrence. It is further submitted that other passengers sitting in the vehicle have sustained minor injuries and since the deceased came under the vehicle after turning over on the road, due to which she died. It is further submitted that the necessary ingredients of rash and negligent driving is itself lacking in this case, therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the petitioner requires to be interfered and liable to be set aside. The petitioner deserves acquittal from the charges levelled against him, 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 the witnesses examined in this case have specifically stated that the petitioner was driving the jeep rash and at high speed even though the road was not in a very good condition and in spite of warning by the passengers, the driver of the jeep had driven at high speed and he did not pay heed to it and continued driving rashly and negligently, due to 2026:JHHC:21543 5 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1441 of 2015) which, the jeep fell into a ditch and several passengers were thrown from the vehicle and sustained injuries including the wife of the informant, who succumbed to her injuries sustained in the above accident. There is concurrent finding by the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court regarding rash and negligent driving by the petitioner. 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. 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. The only point for determination in this revision is that “as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of petitioner suffers from serious error of law calling for any interference in this revision? 14. Before adverting to the above points, I have to take brief resume of the evidence adduced during trial in this case. In the course of trial, it appears that altogether 09 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution apart from documentary evidence. 15. It appears from the evidence of witness, namely PW-1 Titus Guria, who happens to be husband of the deceased, has mentioned his age to be 78 years at the time of his examination on 12.11.2008 that on the date of occurrence at about 8:00, he alongwith his wife and other passengers were returning from Sarita to Saraikella and near 2026:JHHC:21543 6 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1441 of 2015) Bakutoli, the jeep got turned over, in which his wife came under the jeep and died. He states that about 15 passengers were boarding on the said vehicle and some of the passengers had also sustained minor injuries. He has not described any injuries sustained by him at the time. On the date of occurrence, he was aged about 76 years. His wife was also quite old age and succumbed to her injuries. In his cross-examination, he has failed to tell the speed of the vehicle on the relevant time of occurrence. PW-2 Anul Munda was also a passenger and sustained some injuries but stated nothing about rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. PW-3 Unmalan Topno has also stated that he was also travelling in the offending jeep but he was sleeping when the vehicle turned over. He sustained no injury. He has also not stated about rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. PW-4 Marium Topno has been declared hostile and expressed no knowledge about the occurrence. PW-5 Markas Bhengra has also been declared hostile by the prosecution as he has not identified the driver but he was also a passenger in the said jeep which turned over in the place of occurrence. He has also not stated about rash and negligent driving of the vehicle at the relevant time of occurrence. PW-6 David Topno was also a passenger and admits that jeep got turned over due to which, an old lady Lilawati Guria succumbed to it. He did not sustain any injury. PW-7 Tete Topno has been tendered by the prosecution. 2026:JHHC:21543 7 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1441 of 2015) PW-9 Dr. Saurabh Prasad has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found following injuries of multiple bruises on chest and fracture on ribs. I. Abrasion 2" x 2" over both toes. II. Multiple abrasion over left side of chest with fracture of 8th, 9th & 10th ribs over left side. III. Spleen was ruptured, hemoperitoneum was present. The cause of death is opined to be shock due to hemorrhage which may be caused by road-traffic accident. PW-8 S.I. Ram Harish Nirala is the I.O. of this case. He reached at the place of occurrence on receiving information about the accident and recorded fardbeyan of informant Titus Guria (PW-1), which has been proved as Ext.-1. He prepared the inquest report of the deceased, recorded statement of witnesses. He has described the place of occurrence as situated in village Bakutoli, corner of road situated near the field of Dalu Sao, where the offending jeep turtled in which the deceased Lilawati Guria died. He obtained postmortem report. The driver of the vehicle surrendered before the Court. He also brought MVI inspection of the vehicle and submitted chargesheet against the accused. 16. It appears that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court has convicted the petitioner only on considering the evidence of PW-1 the informant-cum-husband of the deceased, who had stated that at the time of accident, the jeep was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver in spite of warning to drive the vehicle in a moderate speed. The other witnesses examined in this 2026:JHHC:21543 8 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1441 of 2015) case have categorically deposed that the vehicle was being driven at very moderate speed but due to rainy water flooded the road and suddenly vehicle came into the ditch which could not be foreseen by the driver and the jeep turned over. It is also brought on record by the prosecution that there were 15 passengers in the said jeep but no other passengers except the deceased had sustained any severe injury including the informant, who was aged about 76 years on the date of alleged occurrence. 17. It is here pertinent to quote the relevant judgment for better appreciation of the merits of the case. In the case of Ban Chandra @ Bapu & Anr. Vs. The state of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1968 SC 1319, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:- " In order to established criminal liability, the fact must be such that the negligence of the accused goes beyond a near matter of compensation between citizens and shows such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the state and conduct deserving punishment. The culpable negligence or rashness depends directly as to what is the amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider it to be sufficient considering the circumstance of the case." "Rashness consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanted act with the knowledge that it is so and that it may cause injury. Criminality in such case lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence on the other hand is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against the injury either to the public generally or to an individual or in particular, which having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted. 2026:JHHC:21543 9 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1441 of 2015) It has been further held that mere fast speed of the vehicle is not enough to prove basic ingredients of Section 304A of the I.P.C. rather prove of driving of the vehicle rashly and negligently is required. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also held in the case of Mrs. Shakila Khader & Ors. Vs. Nausheer Cama & Ors. as reported in AIR 1975 SC 1324 that the important criteria for deciding whether the driving which led to accident was rash or negligent would include not only the speed of the vehicle but also the width of the road, the density of the traffic and the attempt, if any, to overtake the other vehicles, resulting in coming into the wrong side of the road and being responsible for the accident. 18. In the instant case, it has been surfaced in the evidence of witnesses that due to rainy season, the road was flooded with rain water and the jeep turned over a ditch. The most of witnesses have stated that the jeep was running at moderate speed. All the passengers except the deceased have sustained only minor injury which suggests that the speed of the jeep was not at high speed. Therefore, it cannot be said in the circumstance of the case that the jeep was being driven rashly and negligently by the petitioner. The learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have arrived at wrong conclusion about the guilt of the petitioner only on the evidence of the informant, which suffers from serious error of law and can't be justified. 19. In view of above discussion and reasons, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the petitioner passed by the learned Trial Court in G.R. Case No. 727 of 2006 / T. R. No. 1240 of 2011 and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court in Cr. Appeal. No. 2026:JHHC:21543 10 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1441 of 2015) 41 of 2011 is set aside and petitioner is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. 20. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is allowed. 21. Pending I.A.(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 22. The petitioner is on bail. He is discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged. 23. Let a copy of this order be sent through FAX to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful. 24. 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