Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1431 (JHR)

Jitendra Tiwary v. State of Bihar

2012-09-20

H.C.MISHRA

body2012
JUDGMENT By Court: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned for the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 19.1.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau, in Cr. Appeal No. 67 of 1999, whereby the appeal filed against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 9.6.1999 by Sri P.N. Rai, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Daltonganj, in G.R. Case No.142 of 1996 / T.R. No.664 of 1999, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the I.P.C., has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court below. It may be stated that the Trial Court had sentenced the petitioner to undergo R.I. for six months under Section 304A of the I.P.C., and to a fine of Rs.500/-for the offence under Section 279 of the I.P.C. and in default in making the payment of fine; the petitioner was to go simple imprisonment for 15 days. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner passed by the learned Trial Court below has also been upheld by the learned Appellate Court below. 3. Petitioner was made accused in Sadar P.S. Case No. 45 of 1996, corresponding to G.R. No.142 of 1996, which was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of one Rajmuni Baitha, who has stated that on 7.2.1996 at about 9:45 AM, while his nephew, a boy aged about seven years, was passing the road, the truck No. MP 27B 0232, which was being rashly and negligently driven, crushed the boy under the truck, causing his death at the spot. The driver tried to flee away, but the informant, who was present there, jumped over the truck and overpowered the driver at some distance. Subsequently, the truck and the driver were produced before the police, on the basis of which, the police case was instituted and investigation was taken up. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet in this case and ultimately the petitioner was put to trial. 4. It appears from the record that in course of trial, seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution, including the informant and the doctor. The I.O. has not been examined in this case. PW – 1 is the informant, who has fully supported the case and the case is also supported by the other witnesses. 4. It appears from the record that in course of trial, seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution, including the informant and the doctor. The I.O. has not been examined in this case. PW – 1 is the informant, who has fully supported the case and the case is also supported by the other witnesses. The death of the deceased was found due to road accident, as has been proved by PW – 7, Dr. Rajeshwar Singh, who had also proved the post mortem report. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no cogent evidence against the petitioner and even the I.O. has not been examined in this case. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned Judgments passed by the Courts below, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgments worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. 7. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the impugned Judgments, I find that the Courts below have discussed the evidence on record, which go to show that the death of the deceased was caused upon being crushed by the truck, which was being rashly and negligently driven by the petitioner. The evidence of the informant as discussed in the Judgment by the Appellate Court below, clearly shows that the informant had overpowered the driver of the truck after the accident and the driver and the truck were produced before the police. It also appears from the impugned Judgment that no prejudice could be shown by the defence due to non-examination of the I.O. in this case. 8. The Trial Court below has convicted the petitioner for the offences under Section 279 and 304A of the I.P.C. I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction in the Judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court below and affirmed by the Appellate Court. 9. The Courts below have sentenced the petitioner to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 304A of the I.P.C., and a fine of Rs.500/-for the offence under Section 279 of the I.P.C. I find that this case is now very old one and this is a case of a road accident. 9. The Courts below have sentenced the petitioner to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 304A of the I.P.C., and a fine of Rs.500/-for the offence under Section 279 of the I.P.C. I find that this case is now very old one and this is a case of a road accident. As such, I am of the considered view that no useful purpose is going to be served by compelling the petitioner to undergo the remaining period of sentence, which was only for the period of six months. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met, if at the sentence the petitioner to undergo imprisonment is substituted with sentence of fine only. Accordingly, the sentence passed by the Trial Court below as also affirmed by the Appellate Court below of R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 304A of the I.P.C., is hereby, replaced with the sentence of fine of Rs.10,000/-. If the petitioner fails to deposit the amount of fine, the sentence imposed by the Court below, shall take effect. 10. With this modification in sentence, this revision application stands dismissed. Let the lower court records be sent back forthwith. Revision dismissed.