Farooq Ahmad Dar vs State and others

Impugned in this petition is an appellate order dated 12.04.2006 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar whereby he has upheld the

order of conviction and sentence passed by trial Judge under sections 304A, 279, 338 RPc where under he has sentenced the petitioner to

undergo 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 petitioner's plea of guilty etc.

During course of threshold submissions, the petitioner's counsel has reiterated the contents of the revisions petition.

I have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. It appears that petitioner herein was booked under section 304A read with section

279/338 RFC for causing death of one lady and injury (sic) to 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 RFC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for

one year and fine etc. On appeal, the appellate Judge confirmed trial Courts order which occasions this revision petition on the ground as

aforesaid.

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 reopened by mere

argumentation and hair splitting as the petitioner's 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 magistrate's observations 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 petitioner's 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 person's right of fair trial can't be acknowledged as valid grounds for assailing a finding of guilt recorded on plea of the

accused which can't be challenged on any ground other than an illegality in recording the same none of which is alleged. That bring so the appellate

Judge was perfectly right 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 Magistrate's order of conviction/sentence.

The matter stands accordingly disposed of.