2026:JHHC:21545 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 363 of 2017 -------- Dilip Kumar Tetarbe, son of Late Bindeshwari Prasad, resident of New Nagra Toli (Behind Adivasi Hostel) under P.S.-Lalpur, P.O.-Lalpur Town, District-Ranchi ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Munna Kumar, son of Dasai Shah, Village-Tenduwa, P.O. & P.S.- Sanjholi (Sasaram), District-Rohtas … … Opp. Parties ----- P R E S E N T CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Rashidi, Advocate Mr. Afaque Rashidi, Advocate Md. Azan, Advocate Ms. Aulia Begum, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Shubham Sinha, A.C. to Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate : Mr. Mrinal Singh, Advocate -------- C.A.V. on 24.06.2026 Pronounced on 20/07/2026 1. I have already heard the arguments of Mr. A. K. Rashidi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.P.P. and Mr. Shubham Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2. 2. Instant criminal revision is preferred by the informant against the judgment dated 08.09.2016, passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi, in Criminal Appeal No. 149 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred against the judgment of acquittal for the offence under Sections 279 and 304A of the I.P.C., passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi, in G.R. Case No. 1916 of 2009, has been upheld and affirmed and the appeal was dismissed. 2026:JHHC:21545 2 Factual Matrix 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the informant, Dilip Kumar Tetarbe (petitioner), lodged the F.I.R. stating, inter alia, that on 14.05.2009 at about 06:00 A.M., Prateek Ranjan, aged about 17 years, grandson of the informant’s elder brother Birendra Prasad Tetarbe went for tuition and reached some distance from Kanta Toli Chowk at about 06:30 A.M., in the meantime, a dumber No. JH-01X-5116 being driven by its driver very rashly and negligently at a high speed, dashed Prateek Ranjan from behind and fled away towards Namkum. The local persons chased the accused caught hold of him and handed over to Namkum Police Station along with dumper. The informant approached to place of occurrence and brought Prateek Ranjan to Gurunanak Hospital for treatment, but no doctor was on duty, in the meantime, Prateek Ranjan succumbed to the injuries caused in the said accident. 4. On the basis of above fardbeyan of the informant, Lower Bazar, Sadar P.S. Case No. 106 of 2009 dated 14.05.2009 was registered for the offence under Sections 279/304A of the I.P.C. against driver of dumper No. JH-01X-5116. 5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for the aforesaid offences against the driver of above dumper No. JH- 01X-5116, namely Munna Kumar. 6. The substance of accusations was explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to the tried. 7. In the course of trial, altogether three witnesses, namely P.W.-1, 2026:JHHC:21545 3 Dilip Kumar Tetarbe (informant); P.W.-2, Md. Tasleem and P.W.-3, Dr. Binay Kumar were examined by prosecution and no other witness turned up in spite of steps taken by the concerned Trial Court for their appearance. 8. On the other hand, the case of defence is denial from occurrence and plea of innocence, but the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has admitted to be driver of dumper No.JH-01X-5116, at the relevant time of accident. 9. The learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court after evaluating the evidence of P.W.-1 (informant) along with P.W.-3 observed that although, there is no doubt that the deceased died due to sustaining injuries in a road accident, but the informant, P.W.-1 alone has been testified as an eye-witness of the occurrence and P.W.-2, Md. Tasleem has been declared hostile by the prosecution. The prosecution has not been able to prove the actual place of occurrence along with rash and negligent driving of the vehicle at the relevant time of accident by its driver, therefore, acquitted the accused from the charges leveled against him. The appeal preferred by the informant was also dismissed with aforesaid observation. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the learned Trial Court has conducted the trial in a very casual manner and without examining all the witnesses cited in the charge-sheet, closed the prosecution evidence and passed the judgment. It is further submitted that the informant himself was an eye-witness and saw the accident, which also finds corroboration from the evidence of P.W.-3, 2026:JHHC:21545 4 Dr. Binay Kumar, who conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased and found the following injuries:- (i) Abrasion 1 c.m. x ½ c.m. over right upper eyelid middle part. (ii) 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. over right check prominence. (iii) 8 c.m. x 3 c.m. over lateral aspect of right arm lower part. (iv) Multiple in number size ranging from ¼ c.m. x ¼ c.m. to ½ c.m. x ½ c.m. over postero lateral aspect of right forearms middle part. (v) 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. over part of right knee (vi) Multiple in number size ranging from ¼ c.m. x ¼ c.m. to ½ c.m. x ¼ c.m. over left side of front of abdomen upper part. (vii) 3 c.m. x ½ cm. over front of left knee Lacerated wound (i) ½ c.m. x ¼ c.m. x soft tissue deep over left check lower part. The right chest cavity and abdominal cavity are filled with blood and blood clot. The right lobe of the liver along with diaphragm and right partial pleura are lacerated. The pericardial cavity contains 110 ml. of blood and there is laceration and puncture of right ventricle. Opinion (i) The above noted injuries are ante mortem in nature (ii) Caused by hard and blunt substance. (iii) Death is due to hemorrhagic shock 2026:JHHC:21545 5 (iv) Time elapsed since death is 5 hours + 2 hrs. from the time of post mortem examination. The P.W.-3 has proved the post mortem report as Exhibit-2. 11. The driver of the vehicle (accused) himself has admitted in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that at the relevant time of accident, he was driving the offending dumper. Therefore, there was sufficient evidence on record to convict the driver of the vehicle (opposite party No.2) as such both the Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court has committed serious error of law and have passed a perverse and improper judgments, which are liable to be set aside and this revision may be allowed. 12. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2 have opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of petitioner and defended the impugned judgments. 13. I have gone through the impugned judgment passed by learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. It appears that the driver of offending dumper in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has admitted that he was driving the vehicle at the relevant time of accident, but that itself is not amounting to presume that he was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, which resulted in accident. Rather it is bounden duty of the prosecution to establish the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle due to which the accident took place. In the instant case there is no iota of evidence to prove the actual place of 2026:JHHC:21545 6 occurrence, manner of accident and the driving of vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Moreover, the Investigating Officer of this case has also not been examined by the prosecution. Therefore, the very essential ingredient of the offence under Sections 279/304A of the I.P.C. is lacking in this case, which has been rightly appreciated by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court. 14. In view of concurrent findings of the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court regarding innocence of the driver of offending vehicle, I don’t find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgments. 15. In view of above discussion and reasons, I don’t find any merits in this revision, which stands dismissed. 16. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly. 17. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court Dated 20/07/2026 Arpit/ N. A. F. R. Uploaded on 21/07/2026