Shyam Narayan Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand

2026:JHHC:31874

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1150 of 2017
------
Shyam Narayan Singh, S/O Late Jageshwar Singh,
Resident of Village – Khora, P.O. & P.S. – Gumla, District –
Gumla.
.... …. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Vidya Bhushan Sahu, S/o Gajendra Sahu, R/o Hundra
Toli, P.S. – Gumla, District – Gumla
…. .... Opp. Parties
------
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate.
Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Advocate.
For the State : Mrs. Mahua Palit, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate.
------
JUDGMENT

CAV On Dated- 20.08.2026 Pronounced On 30.10.2026

Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the
judgment dated 17.07.2017 passed by learned Sessions
Judge, Gumla in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2017, 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
03.06.2017 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Gumla in G.R. No. 97 of 2010 (arising out of Gumla P.S.
Case No. 40 of 2010, whereby the petitioner has been held
guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under

1

2026:JHHC:31874

Sections 279 and 304-A of the I.P.C. and directed to
undergo S.I. for 03 months for the offence under Section
279 of I.P.C. and S.I. for 01 year for the offence under
Section 304-A of I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to
run concurrently.
Factual Matrix
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that on
05.02.2010 at about 10:30 A.M. one Kailash Sahu, aged
about 05 years while playing near his house situated at
Sisai Road, was dashed by pick-up van bearing registration
no. JH-01AB-7568, being driven rashly and negligently by
its driver. As a result of the above accident, the said Kailash
Sahu died. The informant Vidhya Bhushan Sahu at the
relevant time was engaged in loading sand at National
Highway-23 Sisai-Gumla road received a telephonic
message from Karma Gope and went to the place of
occurrence, where villagers disclosed the vehicle number
and the name of driver of offending vehicle. On the basis of
fardbeyan of informant recorded by police, F.I.R. was
registered against unknown driver of pick-up van
registration no. JH-01AB-7568 for the offence under
Sections 279/304-A of the I.P.C.
4. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was
submitted against the present petitioner and cognizance

2

2026:JHHC:31874

was taken. After appearance of the accused and after
supply of police paper, substance of accusation was
explained to the accused, to which he denied and claimed
to be tried.
5. In course of trial, altogether eight witnesses were
examined by prosecution namely, Hafindra Sahu (P.W.-1),
Gajendra Sahu (P.W.-2), Satyanarayan Kumar (P.W.-3),
Vidhya Bhushan Sahu (Informant) (P.W.-4), Ram Niwas
Sahu (P.W.-5), Chhote Lal Sahu (P.W.-6), Karma Gope
(P.W.-7) and Dr. Anag Raj Subhash Chandra (P.W.-8). Apart
from oral evidence of witness, the prosecution has also
adduced following documentary evidence:-
Exhibit-1 : Signature of Vidhya Bhushan Sahu
(informant) on fardbeyan.
Exhibit-2 : Post-mortem report of deceased.
6. On the other hand, the case of defence is simple
denial from occurrence and plea of false implication.
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 consistently
proved that the driver of offending vehicle dashed a 05 year
child near the hand pump of his house situated near the
road at about 9-10 A.M., as a result of the said accident,

3

2026:JHHC:31874

child namely, Kailash Sahu died. The driver of the vehicle is
also identified as an accused present behind the dock and
facing the trial. The factum of accident is also corroborated
from the evidence of P.W.-8 Dr. Anag Raj Subhash
Chandra, 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
Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2017, which has not been
dismissed by the learned appellate court, upholding the
conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court.
9. Assailing the impugned judgments, learned counsel
for the petitioner has submitted that it is a case of death of
a child of 05 years, who was roaming on the middle of road
without care and negligence of his guardians. The child
suddenly came on the road and met an accident without
any fault on the behalf of driver of the vehicle. 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

4

2026:JHHC:31874

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 A.P.P. appearing for the
State assisted by learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has
vehemently opposed the contention 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, a 05 years child met
with an accident and died. The learned trial court as well 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

5

2026:JHHC:31874

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
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. It appears that 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 and 304-A of
the I.P.C. against the present petitioner. In the evidence 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-

6

2026:JHHC:31874

examination of the Investigating Officer does not affect the
merits of the case. The prime point is regarding
contributory negligence of the guardians of the child, which
is not applicable in criminal cases.
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
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