Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2321 (JHR)

Chandrajit Kumar Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-10-23

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2018
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - None appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State is present. 2. As this matter is pending since 2008 the same is being disposed of based on the materials available on record. 3. This application is directed against the judgment dated 28.08.2003 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 100/98, by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Xth, F.T.C., Ranchi, whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.07.1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ranchi, in connection with Chutia P.S. Case No. 09/97 (Trial No. 47/98), convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 304A, 279, 338 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code has been affirmed. 4. The prosecution story in brief is that the informant who was posted at Chutia P.S. was on patrolling duty on 22.01.1997 at Munda Chowk. It has been stated that at about 7:30 P.M., a scooter was seen coming from the side of Sujata Chowk. It has been alleged that a tractor cum trailer which was coming from Bahu Bazar in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the scooter as a result of which the person riding the scooter fell down. It has been stated that the scooterist was taken by the patrolling party in a Jeep to the hospital in an injured condition. 5. Based on the aforesaid allegation Chutia P.S. Case No. 09/97 was instituted under Sections 279/337/427 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken the substance of acquisition was explained to the petitioner under Sections 279, 338, 304A, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. In course of trial eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.1 (Shambhu Nath Nandi) did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.2 (Madan Mohan Sinha), P.W.3 (Rama Kant Singh), P.W.4 (Krishna Mistry), P.W.5 (Rishi Deo Rai) and P.W.6 (Ram Narayan Hazara) were all members of the patrolling party who have stated that on 22.01.1997 at about 7:30 P.M., a tractor with a trailer which was being driven rashly and negligently coming from the side of Bahu Bazar had dashed against the scooter coming from Sujata Chowk. These witnesses have stated that they had seen the driver of the tractor fleeing away. It has also been stated that the scooterist was taken to the hospital in an auto. P.W.7 (Dr. Sanjay Kumar) had conducted postmortem on Sardar Jagir Singh the deceased and had found the injuries to be ante mortem and consistent with road traffic accident. This witness has proved the postmortem report which has been marked as Exhibit-3. P.W.8 (Onkar Malvih) is the Motor Vehicles Inspector who has proved his report which has been marked as Exhibit-5. This witness has stated that the tractor was examined by him and it did not bare any mechanical defects. 7. The defence had taken a plea before the learned trial court with respect to the identification of the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle on the ground that it was evening and there was no light and the driver was fleeing away which in such circumstances would have made the identification of the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle doubtful. 8. The said plea of the petitioner is negated on the ground that the witnesses have clearly stated that there was light in Munda Chowk and the petitioner was intermittently looking back to see if any one was following him or not and that was sufficient reason for the petitioner to be identified by the witnesses as the driver of the offending vehicle. The witnesses have also identified the petitioner in the court. 9. So far as the evidence of the witnesses are concerned it appears that the members of the patrolling party being P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are all eye witnesses to the occurrence and had clearly stated about the tractor and trailer being driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent fashion dashing against the scooter driven by the deceased Sardar Jagir Singh and on such context therefore the petitioner was rightly convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304A, 279, 338 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. The same is hereby affirmed. 10. So far as the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is concerned it appears that the petitioner has already completed his sentence. 11. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this application and the same is hereby dismissed.