Jagat Prasad Vs. State of Bihar - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
indian penal code, 1860 - sections 279 and 304-a--offence under--rash and negligent driving of tractors---dashed against deceased--later on, deceased died in hospital--there was nothing in judgment of lower court, as pleaded on behalf of petitioner, any non-reading or misreading of evidence--two facts finding courts held that guilt of accused has been established beyond all reasonable doubts--no impropriety in impugned orders passed by two courts--revision liable to be dismissed, and conviction confirmed--but as occurrence took place in 1988 and a long decade has been passed--and petitioner remained in custody for about 15 days and suffered criminal proceedings for such a long time, sentence of three months imposed modified to period already undergone--and petitioner liable to pay also a fine of rs. 1,000/--in default, to undergo, balance of sentence awarded by courts below. - p.k. deb, j.1. this revision petition has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 9-3-1994 passed by additional sessions judge, ii, jehanabad in cr. appeal no. 57 of 1993 whereby and whereunder the conviction and sentence imposed by the judicial magistrate, jehanabad in g.r. case no. 946 of 1993 (trial no. 319 of 1992) had been confirmed. the petitioner was tried for offences under sections 279 and 304a of the i.p.c. and sentenced under the said sections for simple imprisonment for three months amalgamately under two penal sections as mentioned above.2. the occurrence took place on 28-7-1988 while the petitioner was driving his tractor no. bhb 2556 and because of rash and negligent driving dashed against yogendra prasad who; later on, died in the hospital. an information was lodged by means of a fardbayan by p.w. 1 kishore sao who was posing himself to be an eye-witness of the occurrence. the other eye-witness to the occurrence i.e. p.w. 2 jugal kishore has been declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution case then he was confronted with the statements made before the investigation officer under section 161 of the cr. p.c. there was a dying declaration of the deceased while he was being carried to the hospital by the witness. on the basis of the dying declaration and the evidence of p.w. 1 together with the medical evidence as post-mortem report, conviction was arrived at by the trial court and the same has also been confirmed in appeal.3. learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner made an attempt to lead this court for reappraising the evidence on the record. such submission is not tenable unless it could be shown from the judgments challenged that there was misreading and wrong reading of the evidence on record resulting in miscarriage of justice but there is nothing in the judgments and the lower court records that there was any non-reading or misreading of the evidence. the two facts finding courts had arrived at the conclusion that the guilt of the accused has been established beyond all reasonable doubts. there is no impropriety in the impugned orders passed by the two courts. hence, there is no force in this revision petition.4. but, it appears that the occurrence took place in the year, 1988 and long a decade has been passed through which the petitioner has to suffer the rigors of the criminal proceeding over his head. on consultation of the lower court record, it could be found that he remained in custody for about fifteen days. in that view of the matter, although the revision institution is rejected on merit but the sentence imposed is modified to the extent that the sentence of imprisonment of three months would be converted to the period already undergone and in lieu of the balance, the petitioner shall have to pay a fine of rs. 1,000/- to be deposited within a period of four weeks from this date before the trying magistrate. in default, the petitioner shall have to undergo the balance of the sentence imposed by the courts below. if the fine is realised, the same shall be disbursed in favour of the next of kin of the deceased.

Judgment:

P.K. Deb, J.

1. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 9-3-1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, II, Jehanabad in Cr. Appeal No. 57 of 1993 whereby and whereunder the conviction and sentence imposed by the Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad in G.R. Case No. 946 of 1993 (Trial No. 319 of 1992) had been confirmed. The petitioner was tried for offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the I.P.C. and sentenced under the said Sections for simple imprisonment for three months amalgamately under two penal sections as mentioned above.

2. The occurrence took place on 28-7-1988 while the petitioner was driving his tractor No. BHB 2556 and because of rash and negligent driving dashed against Yogendra Prasad who; later on, died in the Hospital. An information was lodged by means of a fardbayan by P.W. 1 Kishore Sao who was posing himself to be an eye-witness of the occurrence. The other eye-witness to the occurrence i.e. P.W. 2 Jugal Kishore has been declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution case then he was confronted with the statements made before the Investigation Officer under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. There was a dying declaration of the deceased while he was being carried to the Hospital by the witness. On the basis of the dying declaration and the evidence of P.W. 1 together with the medical evidence as post-mortem report, conviction was arrived at by the trial Court and the same has also been confirmed in appeal.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner made an attempt to lead this Court for reappraising the evidence on the record. Such submission is not tenable unless it could be shown from the judgments challenged that there was misreading and wrong reading of the evidence on record resulting in miscarriage of justice but there is nothing in the judgments and the lower Court records that there was any non-reading or misreading of the evidence. The two facts finding Courts had arrived at the conclusion that the guilt of the accused has been established beyond all reasonable doubts. There is no impropriety in the impugned orders passed by the two Courts. Hence, there is no force in this revision petition.

4. But, it appears that the occurrence took place in the year, 1988 and long a decade has been passed through which the petitioner has to suffer the rigors of the criminal proceeding over his head. On consultation of the lower Court record, it could be found that he remained in custody for about fifteen days. In that view of the matter, although the revision institution is rejected on merit but the sentence imposed is modified to the extent that the sentence of imprisonment of three months would be converted to the period already undergone and in lieu of the balance, the petitioner shall have to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- to be deposited within a period of four weeks from this date before the trying Magistrate. In default, the petitioner shall have to undergo the balance of the sentence imposed by the Courts below. If the fine is realised, the same shall be disbursed in favour of the next of kin of the deceased.