Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1514 (JHR)

Ranjit Mahto v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-08-24

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard Mr. J. P. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 27-6-2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2005 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, III, Khunti, Ranchi whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 27-1-2005 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Khunti, Ranchi in G. R. No. 303 of 2003 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Sections 279 and 304-A of I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R. I. for 2 years and 6 months respectively has been affirmed. 3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that none of the witnesses had confirmed the fact that it was the petitioner who was driving the vehicle. P.W. 3 claims himself to be eye-witness, but he was about 100 yards distance from the place of occurrence and it is well-nigh impossible for him to identify the petitioner as driver of the said vehicle. He further submits that save and except the statement of P.W. 3, there is no other evidence to suggest that the petitioner was actually driving the vehicle. An alternative argument has been put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction, the period of sentence be substantially reduced considering the fact that the petitioner is facing the rigours of prosecution case since the year 2003. 4. Learned A.P.P. has oppose the prayer. 5. It appears from the allegation made in the FIR that the informant was on his way home and when he arrived near the Bazar Tand, he found that one bicycle was lying there and there was blood scattered on the road. On inquiry, he came to know that daughter of his relative Sunil Aind namely, Sarita Aind had met with an accident and she was taken to sub-divisional hospital by the people. It is alleged that when he arrived at the government hospital, he found the body of the Sarita Aind lying on the dressing table and the doctor had declared her dead. On further inquiry, he came to know that it was the petitioner who was driving Mohan Bus bearing registration No. BR14A/9581 which dashed against the deceased. It is alleged that when he arrived at the government hospital, he found the body of the Sarita Aind lying on the dressing table and the doctor had declared her dead. On further inquiry, he came to know that it was the petitioner who was driving Mohan Bus bearing registration No. BR14A/9581 which dashed against the deceased. Based on the aforesaid allegations, G. R. No. 303 of 2003 was instituted. Investigation culminated in submission of charge-sheet and after cognizance was taken trial proceeded. 6. In course of trial, 7 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W. 1 - Sushil Kunkal is the informant of the case who supported the allegation made in the FIR. P.W.2 - Smt. Polina Konkal is the wife of the P.W. 1 who has stated that she had came to know from other sources about the death of Sarita Aind on account of an accident caused by a Mohan Bus. This witness has stated that while the deceased was coming from Ursuline Convent School, Mohan Bus dashed her from rear side which resulted in her death. She got the registration No. of the bus which is BR 14A/9581. However, she could not disclose as to who was driving the vehicle. P.W. 3 - Anmol Hairenj has submitted that when he was returning home from the market, he saw Mohan bus dashing against a girl and the girl fell down and sustained some injury. This witness has further stated that the vehicle was being driven by the petitioner and the petitioner had left the bus and had fled away. He has further stated that he was 100 yards from the place of occurrence. P.W. 4 - Ansu Kumari is the younger sister of the deceased who has stated about her sister of being dashed by a bus which led to her death. P.W. 5 - Sadhucharan Kondakel is the Investigating Officer of the case who had examined the place of occurrence and has also taken the statement of witnesses under section 161 of Cr. P.C., 1973 This witness after conclusion of the investigation has submitted charge-sheet. P.W. 6-Dr. Prince Pigwa has identified the post-mortem report. This witness had conducted autopsy on the deceased and had opined that, death was caused by brain injury. P.W. 7 Amlain Hassa is a eye-witness who on the fateful day had seen the occurrence. P.C., 1973 This witness after conclusion of the investigation has submitted charge-sheet. P.W. 6-Dr. Prince Pigwa has identified the post-mortem report. This witness had conducted autopsy on the deceased and had opined that, death was caused by brain injury. P.W. 7 Amlain Hassa is a eye-witness who on the fateful day had seen the occurrence. This witness has stated that one girl was coming along with her bicycle when all of a sudden Mohan Bus bearing registration No. BR14A/9581 had dashed against her resulting in her sustaining grievous injury. This witness has identified the petitioner and submitted that he was the person who was driving the vehicle. Thus from the statement of P.W. 3 and P.W. 7, it appears that the petitioner is the driver of the vehicle which led to the accident. 7. The defence has not been able to elicit any contradiction from the evidence of the witnesses who have been consistent with respect to the death of the deceased on account of rash and negligent driving by the petitioner. The learned trial court therefore on proper appreciation of the evidence has convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 279 and 304-A of the I.P.C. which was also affirmed by the learned appellate Court. There being no reason to conclude otherwise with respect to the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned appellate Court, the same are hereby sustained. 8. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner is facing the rigours of prosecution case since the year 2003 and has also remained in custody for 2 and half months. It has been proved that the death was caused by the rash and negligent driving by the petitioner who was the driver of the Mohan Bus which dashed a young girl leading to her death. 9. Considering the said circumstances, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner under Section 304-A of I.P.C. is hereby reduced to R. I. for one year. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court immediately and forthwith. 10. This application is dismissed with the modification in sentence as aforesaid.