Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1515 (JHR)

Jai Narain v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-08-24

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Head Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 10-5-2005 passed the Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2000 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge XIII, Dhanbad whereby and where-under the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Dhanbad in G.R. No. 2130 of 1997 in which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 279/304-A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months has been affirmed. 3. It has been stated that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and merely on surmises the petitioner has been implicated as driver of the offending 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 judgment of conviction, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner be substantially reduced considering the fact that the petitioner has remained in custody for about 2 months. 4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposite the prayer. 5. The allegation made in the FIR is that the son of the informant has met with an accident by a truck bearing registration No. BHW/96 as a result of which he died. It is also alleged that the truck was being driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner. Based on the aforesaid allegation, G.R. No. 2130 of 1997 was instituted under Sections 279 & 304-A of IPC. Investigation resulted in submission charge-sheet and after cognizance was taken and substance of accusation was explained, trial proceeded. 6. In course of trial, 7 witness were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The material witness P.W. 3-Dinesh Sah appears to be the eye-witness of the occurrence who has stated that he was at the distance of 100 meters when he saw that truck bearing No. BHW/96 dashed against the deceased-Dharmendra Bhuiyan and thereafter ran away with high speed. This witness has chased the truck by scooter and got the vehicle stopped, but the driver of the vehicle ran away. This witness has identified the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle. The evidence of P.W. 3 thus appears to be consistent and inspires confidence. This witness has chased the truck by scooter and got the vehicle stopped, but the driver of the vehicle ran away. This witness has identified the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle. The evidence of P.W. 3 thus appears to be consistent and inspires confidence. So far as the rest witnesses are concerned, they have merely heard about the incident and admittedly none of the said witnesses save and except P.W. 3, are the eye-witness to the occurrence. The petitioner had given a statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C., 1973 having not denied the fact that he was the driver of the offending vehicle. Thus the evidence of P.W. 3 coupled with the surrounding circumstances thus proves the petitioner as the driver of the vehicle which had caused the death of the son of the informant. The learned trial Court on proper appreciation of the materials had rightly convicted the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC which was subsequently affirmed in appeal. 7. There being no reason to conclude otherwise, the judgment passed by the ltrial Court as well as affirmed by the appellate Court is hereby sustained. 8. However, with respect to the sentence imposed upon the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner is facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1997 and has completed 2 months imprisonment out of the maximum punishment of R.I. for 6 months. Considering the aforesaid scenario, the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone in custody. 9. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.