Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 832 (JHR)

Mohan Kumhar v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-05-08

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - Heard Mr. Navneet Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A. K. Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment, dated 7-5-2002 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella in Cri. Appeal No. 7C of 1999, whereby and where under the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Seraikella in S.R. Case No. 523 of 1997 (T.R. No. 147 of 1999) by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code has been affirmed while modifying the sentence imposed upon the petitioner by directing the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. 3. It appears that a First Information Report was instituted on the allegation that while the son of the Informant who was aged about 13 years was sitting besides the Jamdih-Gunda Road in the left side the petitioner driving the scooter rashly and negligently dashed against the son of the informant causing him certain injuries. It is also alleged that on an alarm raised by the victim the petitioner was apprehended by the other witnesses. After investigation resulted in submission of charge sheet cognizance was taken under sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and after framing of charge trial proceeded against the petitioner. In course of trial since the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Seraikella vide judgment, dated 15-2-1999 was pleased to convict the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three months under section 279 of the IPC and R.I. for three months under section 337 of the IPC. 4. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Cri. Appeal No. 7C of 1999 which was however dismissed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella on 7-5-2002 by upholding the judgment of conviction while modifying the sentence by imposing a fine of Rs. 1000/- to be paid by the petitioner. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the witnesses are interested witnesses. 1000/- to be paid by the petitioner. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the witnesses are interested witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no evidence has come on record to suggest that the scooter which was alleged to have dashed against the son of the informant had any mark to suggest such accident had taken place. In the alternative an argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if this Court is not inclined to interfere in the judgment of conviction the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner be modified in view of the fact that the petitioner is facing the rigours of the prosecution case since the year 1999 and has also for some time remained in custody. 6. It appears that in course of evidence eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.Ws. 1, 2, 5 and 6 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence whereas P.Ws. 3 and 4 had not seen the occurrence. So far as P.W. 7 is concerned he is the Motor Vehicle Inspector who had tested the vehicle which caused the accident. P.W. 8 is the doctor who had examined P.W. 2 the injured and had found some injuries which were found to be simple in nature. P.W. 9 is the Investigating Officer of the case. P.W. 2 is the victim Samant Kumhar who has stated that on the alleged date of occurrence while he was sitting in a Bagicha the petitioner driving his scooter rashly and negligently had dashed against him causing him injury on his back and leg. This witness has also stated that the petitioner was apprehended at the spot by the other persons. P.W. 1 is the brother of P.W. 2 who is also an eye-witness and who has stated on similar terms to what has been stated by P.W. 2. P.W. 5 is the independent witnesses who is the resident of the same village who had seen the occurrence of the scooter of the petitioner dashing against the son of the informant. P.W. 6 is the father of the victim and is the informant of the present case who has also stated about the rash driving of the petitioner which resulted in the injury caused to his son. P.W. 6 is the father of the victim and is the informant of the present case who has also stated about the rash driving of the petitioner which resulted in the injury caused to his son. P.W. 7 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector who had examined the scooter bearing registration No. BR X 8419 and his report has been marked as Exhibit-2. This witness had stated that he had not found any mechanical trouble with the vehicle. P.W. 8 is the doctor who had treated P.W. 2 and had proved Exhibit-3 which is the injury report. This witness has stated that the injury suffered by P.W. 2 was simple in nature. P.W. 9 is the Investigating Officer of the case who after taking the statement of the witnesses under section 161, Cr. P.C., 1973 had submitted charge sheet. Thus the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 5 and 6 are in conformity with each other on the point of the victim being dashed by the scooter driven rashly and negligently by the petitioner resulting in injury suffered by the victim. The report of the doctor which has been marked as Exhibit-3 also is suggestive of the fact that some injuries were received by the informant. P.W. 7 the Motor Vehicle Inspector has clearly opined that the scooter had not developed any mechanical snag while the accident had taken place. Thus in view of the evidence of the eye-witnesses as depicted above the act of the petitioner in rash and negligent driving has been sufficiently proved and the ocular evidence has been corroborated by the medical evidence also. 7. In such circumstances, therefore, the learned trial Court had rightly convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code which has also rightly been affirmed by the learned appellate Court. I find no reason to interfere in the judgment of conviction and therefore the same is hereby, sustained. 8. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner it appears that the petitioner is facing the rigours of the prosecution case since the year 1999 and has also for some time remained in custody. The injury suffered by the informant had been opined to be simple in nature. 8. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner it appears that the petitioner is facing the rigours of the prosecution case since the year 1999 and has also for some time remained in custody. The injury suffered by the informant had been opined to be simple in nature. Considering that the offence committed by the petitioner is not grave in nature as also the long pendency of the case the same deserves some leniency with respect to the period of sentence. Accordingly, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone. 9. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.