JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Ranish Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Shekhar Sinha, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.

3. This criminal revision application is directed against the Judgment dated 14.06.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 2012, whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court affirmed the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 21.04.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. No. 3567 of 2004/T.R. No. 836 of 2012 (arising out of Katras (Rajganj) P.S. Case No. 392/2004) and dismissed the criminal appeal preferred by the petitioner.

4. The learned trial court had convicted the petitioner under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.4,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. However, the learned trial court acquitted the petitioner from the charge under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while advancing his arguments, submitted that both the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below are perverse and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. He submitted that the petitioner was charged for offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, but he was acquitted by the learned court below for offence under Section 279 of IPC as the same was not proved. The reason for acquittal was that none of the witnesses had stated as to what was the speed of the tanker and there was no technical report by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, the competent authority. The learned counsel submitted that there is no evidence to show that there was rash or negligent driving by the petitioner. Learned counsel also submitted that there is serious dispute as to whether the petitioner was the driver of the offending vehicle or not, as the petitioner was never apprehended on the spot and was subsequently apprehended by the police. He submitted that the basic ingredient of rash or negligent driving for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC is not satisfied in the present case and accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 304(A) of IPC cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Karnataka –vs- Satish (1998) 8 SCC 493 and Mahadeo Hari Likre –vs- State of Maharashtra AIR 1972 SC 221. He also relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in Cr. Appeal No. 795/2014 decided on 24.08.2020 in the case of Sheikh Imran vs. State of Jharkhand.

7. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel further submitted that the present offence is the first offence of the petitioner and he has remained in custody from 04.01.2013 to 16.01.2013 during the pendency of the present criminal revision application. He also submitted that on the date of conviction i.e., 21.04.2012, the petitioner was aged about 59 years and accordingly, the present age of the petitioner is about 68 years. He further submitted that the date of incident is 07.11.2004 and accordingly, more than 16 years have elapsed from the date of the incident. He submitted that considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, some sympathetic view may be taken and the sentence may be modified and reduced.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State

8. Learned counsel for the State, while opposing the prayer, submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below, which do not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction by this Court. It is not in dispute that the learned trial court has acquitted the petitioner for offence under Section 279 of IPC and has convicted him for offence under Section 304(A) of IPC. He al