Bhutali Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:31881
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 895 of 2017
------
Bhutali Mahto, son of Sri Bheem Mahto, resident of
Koyarpara, P.O. + P.S. – Burharwa, District – Sahibganj.
.... …. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …. .... Opp. Party
------
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
------
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Niharika Mazumdar, Advocate.
Mr. Niraj Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P.
------
JUDGMENT
CAV On Dated- 18.09.2026 Pronounced On 30.10.2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the
judgment dated 18.05.2017 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge-I, Sahibganj in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of
2014, whereby and whereunder the appellate court has
dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and
confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 24.06.2014 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Sahibganj in
G.R. No. 351 of 2012 (T.R. No. 105 of 2014), whereby the
petitioner has been held guilty and convicted for the offence
punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of the I.P.C.
and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 06 months for the offence
under Section 279 of I.P.C., further sentenced to undergo
and S.I. for 02 years each for the offence under Sections
1
2026:JHHC:31881
338 and 304-A of I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to
run concurrently.
Factual Matrix
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that on
04.07.2012 at 10:00 hours, the informant namely,
Lukhiram Hansda along with his son Karu Hansda proceed
to his father-in-law’s house by his bicycle and when they
reached PHC, Barhait road, a truck bearing registration no.
WB-65-9826, being driven rashly, dashed his bicycle from
front and as a result of which, both of them were fall on the
ground. The son of the informant received serious injury in
his stomach and died on the spot. On the basis of
fardbeyan of informant recorded by police, F.I.R. was
registered against unknown driver of truck bearing
registration no. WB-65-9826 for the offence under Sections
279, 337, 338 & 304-A of the I.P.C.
4. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was
submitted against the present petitioner and cognizance
was taken. On 22.02.2013, accusation under Sections 279,
337, 338 and 304-A of the I.P.C. has been explained, to
which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In course of trial, altogether three witnesses were
examined by prosecution namely, Sahabram Soren (P.W.-1),
Lukhiram Hansda (Informant) (P.W.-2) and Dr. Mahmood
2
2026:JHHC:31881
Alam (P.W.-3). Apart from oral evidence of witness, the
prosecution has also adduced one documentary evidence:-
Exhibit-1 : Post-mortem report of deceased.
6. On the other hand, the case of defence is total denial
from occurrence and nothing more. However, no oral or
documentary evidence were adduced by defence.
7. The learned trial court, after evaluating the evidence
recorded findings that all the witnesses of facts including
P.W.-2 (injured) consistently proved that the driver of
offending vehicle dashed the bicycle of the informant from
front at about 10:00 A.M. near PHC, Barhait road, as a
result of the said accident, son of the informant namely,
Karu Hansda died. The driver of the vehicle is also identified
as an accused present behind the dock, facing the trial. The
factum of accident is also corroborated from the evidence of
P.W.-3 Dr. Mahmood Alam, who has conducted autopsy on
the dead body. It was also held that the prosecution has
proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt that the
accused was driving the vehicle very rashly and negligently
at the time of occurrence. Accordingly, convicted and
sentenced the petitioner for the aforesaid offences, as stated
above.
8. The convict preferred a Criminal Appeal against his
conviction and sentence by the learned trial court vide
3
2026:JHHC:31881
Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2014, which has been dismissed
by the learned appellate court, upholding the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial
court.
9. Assailing the impugned judgments, learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that this case involves the
death of one person (the informant's son) who, along with
his father (the informant), met with an accident involving a
truck while they were traveling to his in-laws' house on a
bicycle. The Investigating Officer has not been examined in
this case. Therefore, the place of occurrence was not
established with exactitude and site plan has not been
proved. The learned trial court as well as learned appellate
court has failed to consider the above aspects of the case
and arrived at wrong conclusion. Both learned trial court as
well as appellate court has recorded perverse finding, which
are liable to be set aside and this revision may be allowed.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel Spl.P.P. for the
State has vehemently opposed the contentions raised on
behalf of the petitioner and submitted that there is
concurrent findings of facts that there is rash and negligent
driving by its driver (petitioner) and as a result of which,
informant and his son met with an accident and son of the
informant died on the spot. The learned trial court as well
4
2026:JHHC:31881
as learned appellate court has not committed any error of
law in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. Therefore,
there is no merit in this revision, calling for any interference
in the impugned judgment and order, which it fit to be
dismissed.
11. I have gone through the record of the case along with
impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised on
behalf of both side.
12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Balwant Singh
Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1994 Supp (2) SCC 67
has held that :-
"8. Then the question would be whether an
offence under Section 304-A IPC is made out? The
provisions of this section apply to cases where
there is no intention to cause death and no
knowledge that the act done in all probabilities
will cause death. Therefore this provision is
directed at offences outside the range of Sections
299 and 300 IPC and obviously contemplates
those cases into which neither intention nor
knowledge enters. The words "not amounting to
culpable homicide" in the section are very
significant and it must therefore be understood
that intentionally or knowingly inflicted violence
directly and wilfully caused is excluded. The
section applies only to such acts which are rash
or negligent and are directly the cause of death of
another person. In other words, a rash act is
primarily an overhasty act as opposed to a
deliberate act but done without due care and
5
2026:JHHC:31881
caution. Then the question whether the conduct of
the accused amounted to culpable rashness or
negligence depends on the amount of care and
circumspection which a prudent and reasonable
man would consider it to be sufficient and this
depends on the circumstances in each case."
13. From the aforesaid facts, it appears that the victim
and deceased were hit by vehicle rashly and negligently and
considering the testimony of ocular witnesses examined in
this case, both the trial court and appellate court have
recorded concurrent findings establishing the charges
under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of the I.P.C. against the
present petitioner. In the evidences of witnesses, no
contradictions or discrepancies have been elicited during
cross-examination and pointed out at the time of argument,
even before this Court. Therefore, non-examination of the
Investigating Officer does not affect the merits of the case.
14. Considering the overall aspects of the case, I do not
find any legal substance in the points of argument raised on
behalf of the petitioner and no merits in this revision.
Accordingly, this revision is dismissed .
15. The petitioner is on bail. His bail bond is hereby
cancelled.
16. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the
concerned Trial Court within two months from the date of
this judgment and receive the remaining period of sentence
6
2026:JHHC:31881
awarded by the learned Trial Court, 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
remaining period of sentence awarded to him.
17. Pending I.A, if any, stand disposed of.
18. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court
record be sent to the court concerned for information and
needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated : 30/10/2026
Sunil/-
NAFR
Uploaded on 30/10/2026
7