Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 847 (JHR)

Kuldeep Singh @ Sardarji v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-04-12

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2018
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard Ms. Madhulika Das Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. K. Srivastava, learned A.P.P. for the State. This application is directed against the judgment dated 20.02.2008 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 2006 by which the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.06.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamshedpur by which the petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Sections 279,337,304A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to various terms has been affirmed. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 24.08.2000 at about 09:00 A.M. the informant had boarded a bus for Musabani. It has been alleged that as the bus came at N.H. 33, the driver of the bus started driving rashly and negligently and near Danga village the bus turned turtle which resulted in one of the staffs of the bus namely Md. Salim @ Kalla dying. It has also been alleged that some other persons had also sustained injuries on account of the accident. 3. Based on the aforesaid allegation Mango (Mufassil) P. S. Case No. 191 of 2000 was instituted in which after investigation charge-sheet was submitted resulting in taking of cognizance and thereafter trial proceeded. 4. In course of trial nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the identification of the driver could not be ascertained in view of the oral evidence of the witnesses. She has further stated that the Motor Vehicle Inspector has not been examined. Learned counsel submits that even the injured witnesses have been unable to identify the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle. 6. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 7. It appears from a perusal of the evidence of the witnesses that the conviction is based on the evidence of P.W. 5 who happens to be the brother of the deceased. P. W. 5, Md. Alim, was also in the said bus which had turned turtle near village Danga and he has clearly deposed about the petitioner being the driver of the vehicle. P. W. 5, Md. Alim, was also in the said bus which had turned turtle near village Danga and he has clearly deposed about the petitioner being the driver of the vehicle. The version of P.W. 5 is totally believable in view of the fact that his brother who had died in the accident was a Khalashi in the said bus and, therefore, he was aware about the driver who was driving the offending vehicle. Although the Motor Vehicle Inspector has not been examined but M.V.I. report has been exhibited as Exhibit -3 from which it appears that the vehicle was inspected and no mechanical defects could be found in the said vehicle which further substantiates the case of the prosecution that on account of rash and negligent driving by the petitioner the vehicle had turned turtle leading to the death of one of the staffs of the vehicle. Some of the other injured witnesses namely P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 have stated about they having suffered injuries on account of the accident. 8. The evidence of the witnesses especially that of P.W. 5, therefore, fortifies the identification of the petitioner as the person who was driving the offending vehicle and in such circumstances, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. 9. There being no reasons to differ with the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court the same is hereby, sustained. 10. However with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner it appears that the petitioner is facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 2000 and has also for some time remained in custody. 11. Upon consideration of the aforesaid fact the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone. 12. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.