Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1294 (JHR)

Surajdeo Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand

2006-11-07

DILIP KUMAR SINHA

body2006
ORDER D.K. Sinha, J 1. The Cr. Revision Application is directed against the order dated 17.5.2004 passed by Shri Awadhesh Nandan, 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau in Cr. Appeal No. 88/1995 whereby and whereunder the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the petitioner Surajdeo Manjhi by Shri Krishna Gopal Dwivedi, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Daltonganj in T.R. No. 236/95 arising out of G.R. No. 499/1992 was upheld and affirmed. The petitioner was convicted under Sections 279 and 304-A, IPC and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and two years respectively on each count. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that one Laldeo Yadav succumbed his injuries under the wheels of Truck No. BRO 3422 which was driven by the petitioner. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there was no eye-witness of the occurrence and trial Court as well as the first appellate Court failed to take into consideration of such aspect of the case, 4. Advancing his argument Mr. A.K. Sinha further submitted that the prosecution failed to bring the material on the record that Laldeo Yadav died on account of rash or negligent driving of the petitioner causing culpable homicide (not amounting to murder). 5. Mr. Sinha, further submitted that the punishment awarded to the petitioner on both the counts are extreme, since maximum punishment as prescribed under Section 304-A as well as under Section 279, IPC have been awarded to him In spite of the specific defence that the petitioner was not driving the vehicle at the relevant time of alleged occurrence and that he was falsely implicated. 6. As many as 9 witnesses were produced and examined on behalf of the prosecution. Besides, the prosecution proved certain other documents as such, statement of the informant-Ext. 1, seizure list-Ext. 2, formal FIR Ext. 3 and the postmortem report- Ext. 4. 7. From the perusal of the judgment of the trial Court below it is evident that PW 1 Krishna Ram was the eye-witness of the occurrence. He proved the involvement of the petitioner as he was driving the Truck No. BRO 3422 at the relevant time of alleged occurrence who dashed Rajdeo Yadav as a result of which the wheels of the truck crushed the head and he died. He stood to the test of cross-examination. He proved the involvement of the petitioner as he was driving the Truck No. BRO 3422 at the relevant time of alleged occurrence who dashed Rajdeo Yadav as a result of which the wheels of the truck crushed the head and he died. He stood to the test of cross-examination. PW 2 Kailash Yadav though is not the eye-witness of the occurrence but he spotted the dead body of the victim lying near the Truck No BRO 3422 and that the petitioner- driver Surajdeo Manjhi was standing near the said truck. P.W. 3 Ramdayal Sharma has also supported the statement of PW 2. PW 4 Sudama Ram was tendered on behalf of the prosecution. PW 5 has also supported that he spotted the injured Mahadeo Yadav who had come under the wheels of the truck. The said truck was standing at some distance and that the petitioner driver of the truck was restrained there. 8. PW 6 Mahadeo Yadav is the informant and he deposed that he received information from Kailash Yadav (PW 2) that his son was crushed by the truck. On such information he went near the grainery of one Mangu Ram and found the petitioner Surajdeo Manjhi restrained there and that the head of his son was crushed and there-were injuries in his legs on account of which his son died. He has given a detailed description of the place of occurrence as well as the position of truck near the grainery as well as the dead body of his son. He deposed that the petitioner was known to him from before since he was son-in-law of the village and that he had earlier seen him driving the vehicle. 9. PW 7 Chharitar Ram stated before the trial Court that he was the first person to arrive at the scene of occurrence first point in time, restrained the petitioner and took the key of the vehicle from his possession. 10. PW 8 Damodar Ram had investigated the case who registered the FIR after recording the statement of the informant Mahadeo Yadav at the place of occurrence on 5.4.1992 where the truck No. B.R.O. 3422 was parked and the dead body of the victim was lying by the side of the said truck which was crushed. 11. From the perusal of the judgment passed by the Trial Court as well as the judgment delivered in Cr. 11. From the perusal of the judgment passed by the Trial Court as well as the judgment delivered in Cr. Appeal No. 88/1995 I find that these are well discussed which do not call for interference on merit and hence the conviction of the petitioner passed by the trial Court below and upheld by the first appellate Court is maintained but keeping in view the young age of the petitioner Surajdeo Manjhi and that maximum punishment as prescribed under the penal Sections have been awarded to him without explaining the reasons in find it requires reasonable consideration. 12. In view of the above fact upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Section 304-A, IPC the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment awarded to him under Section 304-A is reduced to six months simple imprisonment. The sentence awarded to the petitioner for his conviction under Section 279, IPC is maintained. Both the sentences to run concurrently. This Revision is dismissed. 13. The petitioner is directed to serve out the balance period of sentence and the Court concerned shall take effective steps.