FAROOQ AHMED DAR Vs. STATE

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 aforesaid.

(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.