Judgment:
Cr. Revision No. 287 of 2005 --------- Against the judgment dated 21.12.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in Cr. Appeal No. 50 of 2004, affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gumla on 26.07.2004 in G.R. No. 7 of 2002 (T.R. No. 494 of 2004) --------- Shailindar Singh, S/o Late Mangal Singh, R/o Diwantoli Basia, P.S.- Basia, District- Gumla. ... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. --------- Present: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --------- By Court: Heard Mr. Mohit Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. This application is directed against the judgment dated 21.12.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in Cr. Appeal No. 50 of 2004, whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gumla on 26.07.2004 in G.R. No. 7 of 2002 (T.R. No. 494 of 2004) by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to S.I. for six months and 2 years respectively has been affirmed. The First Information Report was instituted by P.W.-1 wherein it was stated that his brother had gone to his in-laws place to bring his wife. It is alleged that on 31.12.2001 informant heard that an accident had taken place in which one person had died. Hearing the said news the informant along with his co-villager Manoj Minz (P.W.2) had gone to the place of occurrence and saw one person dead and the cycle lying in a damaged condition. It is alleged that the deceased was the brother of the informant and the informant had subsequently come to know that a truck had dashed against the deceased and the driver had fled away along with the truck. -2- Based on the aforesaid allegation G.R. Case No. 7 of 2002 was instituted. Investigation resulted in submission of charge sheet and after cognizance was taken substance of acquisition was explained to the accused and thereafter trial proceeded. In course of trial seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.1 Sanichar Minz is the informant who had stated that he had gone to the place of occurrence and identified the dead body as that of his brother. He has further stated that later on he came to know that Truck No. B.R.S9091had caused the accident and the petitioner was the driver of the offending vehicle. P.W. 2 Manoj Minj has stated that he accompanied P.W.1 when he learnt about the accident. P.W.3 Aghna Minz has stated that he had come to know about the occurrence from another villager namely Mukesh Sahu who had informed him that the rogue vehicle was having registration no. B.R.S.
9091. P.W.4 Aliazar Kujur is a hearsay witness. P.W.5 Dr. Krishna Prasad had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. P.W.6 Mukesh Kumar Sahu has stated that on the date of the accident he was going to Kilga. He has stated that he saw one truck coming which dashed against the cycle and speedily went away, the number of the truck being B.R.S9091 He has stated that he could not see the driver of the truck as it was dark. P.W.7 Navin Kumar singh has stated that he saw a truck coming in a very high speed and causing the accident. This witness had stated that the petitioner used to drive the vehicle prior to the incident and even after the accident. Since the prosecution had been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt the petitioner was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gumla on 26.07.2004 u/s 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months and 2 years respectively. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 50 of 2004 which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla on 21.12.2004. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation itself is doubtful as there were no eyewitnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits -3- that the accident had taken place in the night and merely because the petitioner was driving the vehicle prior to the accident and after the accident it cannot be presumed that it was the petitioner who was the driver of the offending vehicle. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Investigating Officer of the case has also not been examined which has caused prejudice to the defence. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to project a picture that the petitioner was not the driver of the offending vehicle but from the evidence of the witnesses although none had specifically said about whether the petitioner was driving the vehicle on the fateful night or not but it appears that the petitioner was driving the vehicle prior to the incident having taken place and subsequent to the accident also. The defence has not brought any evidence to counter the prosecution version as no witness had been examined by the defence nor any document has been produced to suggest that the petitioner was not driving the vehicle when the accident had taken place. The evidence of the witnesses have clearly established the fact that Truck No. B.R.S. 9091 was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. So far as the driver of the vehicle is concerned as has been stated above the presumption has rightly been made in absence of any evidence to the contrary that the petitioner was indeed driving the truck bearing registration No. B.R.S.
9091. Such circumstances having been rightly considered the petitioner has been convicted for the offences u/s 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code which was affirmed by the learned appellate court. There being no reason to conclude otherwise with respect to the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioner and which was affirmed in appeal, the same is, hereby, sustained. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner it appears that the petitioner is facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 2002 and has also for some time remained in custody. Considering -4- the aforesaid facts the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence. (R. Mukhopadhyay, J.) Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi The 7th day of August, 2017 Alok/NAFR