Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 51 (JHR)

Raj Kumar Tanti v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-01-09

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Mr. Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Tapas Roy, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 16.11.1998 passed by Shri S.P. Thakur, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 1997 whereby and where under the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 02.04.1997 passed in G.R. Case No. 1556 of 1991 by Shri S.P. Pandey, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code has been dismissed. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is alleged to be the driver of the offending vehicle which had crushed two children. It has been submitted that there is no consistent evidence on the part of the witnesses as even the eyewitnesses had failed to identify the petitioner of being the driver of the offending vehicle. Learned counsel further submits that P.W. - 1 and P.W. - 2 have not witnessed the occurrence and so far as the P.W. - 3 is concerned, who happens to be the informant of the case whose evidence is totally unreliable as there are contradictions galore with respect to his evidence. It has been stated that although P.W. - 3 has disclosed about the petitioner having been confined by the villages for five hours but in spite of the said fact the First Information Report was instituted against unknown persons which itself falsifies the evidence of P.W. - 3. Learned counsel submits that the Investigating Officer has not been examined by the prosecution which itself is fatal for the prosecution. Learned counsel further submits that these facts have not been properly appreciated by the learned court below before convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Mr. Learned counsel further submits that these facts have not been properly appreciated by the learned court below before convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Mr. Tapas Roy, learned A.P.P., has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and while supporting the impugned judgment has stated that P.W. - 3 has categorically stated about the presence of the petitioner being the driver of the offending vehicle which on account of rash and negligent driving on his part led to the accident resulting in death of two children of P.W. - 2. Learned counsel further submits that the evidence of P.W. - 3 appears to be consistent save and except some minor discrepancies which is understandable but which is not to be taken note of while considering the case of the petitioner in its proper perspective. 5. A fardbeyan was given by the P.W. - 3 on 09.06.1991 in which it was alleged that one Maruti Van bearing No. BR-17A-1587 was rashly and negligently being driven by its driver and he crushed two children and the vehicle also over turned. It was also alleged therein that on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle one of the children namely Rekha has died on the spot whereas the another child namely Suraj died in course of the treatment. 6. Based on the aforesaid allegations Govindpur P.S. Case No. 137 of 1991 was registered against the unknown persons. 7. The investigation culminated in submission of charge-sheet against the petitioner and ultimately the petitioner was convicted by the learned trial court on 02.04.1997 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence the petitioner has preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 1997 which, however, was dismissed vide judgment dated 16.11.1998. 9. The prosecution in course of trial has examined three witnesses. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence the petitioner has preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 1997 which, however, was dismissed vide judgment dated 16.11.1998. 9. The prosecution in course of trial has examined three witnesses. P.W. - 1, Buta Singh, was although an eye-witness to the occurrence but has not disclosed about the name of the driver and has also failed to identify the petitioner in the dock. P.W. - 2, Lal Bahadur Thappa, is the unfortunate father of the victims who has also categorically stated that he could not identify the driver of the vehicle. P.W. - 3, Md. Muslim, is the informant of the present case who in his evidence has stated about the occurrence and has also specifically stated about the petitioner being the driver of the offending vehicle and on account of his rash and negligent driving the incident had taken place. 10. Some discrepancy in the statement of P.W. - 3 has been sought to be highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to the fact that although it has been stated by him that the driver of the offending vehicle was confined by the villagers for five hours but in spite of the said fact the First Information Report was instituted against unknown person. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not inspire the confidence inasmuch as in the First Information Report the same has been instituted against the driver of the vehicle bearing registration no. BR-17A-1587. 11. Moreover, P.W. - 3 in course of his evidence had identified the petitioner in the trial as the person who was driving the offending vehicle. The evidence of P.W. - 3 is consistent on the point of identification of the petitioner being the driver of the vehicle and so far as the P.Ws. - 1 and 2 are concerned, they although have not identified the petitioner as the driver of the vehicle but has consistently stated about the incident which had taken place as well as the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle. 12. The evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution appears to be reliable, trustworthy and cannot be brushed aside merely because some discrepancies appear in the statement which further seems to be minor in nature. 12. The evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution appears to be reliable, trustworthy and cannot be brushed aside merely because some discrepancies appear in the statement which further seems to be minor in nature. The learned courts below on consideration of the evidence on record have found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and there being no cause to interfere in the impugned judgments, this application stands dismissed.