FAROOQ AHMED DAR Vs. STATE
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
FAROOQ AHMED DAR
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) IMPUGNED in this petition is an appellate order dated 12.04.2006 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar whereby he has up -held
the order of conviction and sentence passed by trial Judge under sections
304 -A, 279, 338 RPC whereunder he has sentenced the petitioner to under go simple imprisonment for a period of one year and fine etc. after he
pleaded guilty to the charge. Grounds pleaded are that the appellate
court did not apply its mind to the matter and failed to notice the
illegality committed by the trial Judge while recording petitioners plea
of guilty etc. During course of threshold submissions, the petitioners
counsel has reiterated the contents of the revision petition.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. It appears that petitioner herein was booked under section 304 -A read with
section.212/338 RPC for causing death of one lady and injury the other
during rash and negligent driving. At trial the charge was read over and
explained to him to which he pleaded guilty and was convicted under
aforementioned sections of RPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
one year and fine of etc. On appeal, the appellate Judge confirmed trial
Courts order which occasions this revision petition on the ground as
(3.) SUBJECTIVELY however, the matter appears to be in a straight jacket. After the occurrence a case was instituted before the competent
magistrate who framed charge against the accused in accordance with law
and the accused pleading guilty thereto the Magistrate passed the order
of conviction and sentence after properly recording the plea of accused.
Ordinarily thus, the matter does not merit to be re -opened by mere
argumentation and hair splitting as the petitioners counsel has tried to
do, by stating that the accused petitioner was not made conscious of the
consequences of his confession etc; particularly in view of trial
magistrates observation that the petitioner accused was fully aware of
the consequences while pleading guilty to the charge. In a case of this
nature where one lady has lost her life due to petitioners reckless
driving, the other got seriously injured there, and accused admitted his
guilt, projection of technicalities which do not at all appear to have
had any adverse effect upon accused persons right of fair trial cant be
acknowledged as valid grounds for assailing a finding of guilt recorded
on plea of the accused which cant be challenged on any ground other than
an illegality in recording the same none of which is alleged. That being
so the appellate Judge was perfectly Bright in upholding the order of
conviction and sentence.
Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed at the threshold. The petitioner if at large shall surrender himself for
undergoing punishment under trial Magistrates order of
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.