The High Court · 2024
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cri. Revision No. 1508 o 2016 Rajesh Kumar, son of Nagina Mahto, resident of village + P.O. + P.S. Domchanch, District Koderma Petitioner … … The State of Jharkhand Versus --- … … Opp. Party CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner For the Opp. Party 06/2nd September 2024 --- ---
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, Adv. 1. 2. Learned counsel for the parties are present. This revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment dated 30.08.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koderma in Criminal Appeal No. 02 of 2015 whereby the learned court has dismissed the appeal. 3. The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 13.01.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-I, (S.D.J.M.), Koderma in Jainagar P.S. Case No. 75 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 697 of 2007 and further corresponding to T.R. No. 38 of 2014 for offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence under Section 304(A) of IPC; simple imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 279 of the IPC; simple imprisonment for four months for offence under Sections 337 and 338 of IPC. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned trial court has convicted the petitioner for offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the IPC, but the learned appellate court has sustained the conviction only for offence under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. The learned counsel submits that PW 6 in his evidence during cross-examination has stated that there were pot-holes on the road. The learned counsel submits that the rash and 1 negligent driving by the petitioner has not been proved and therefore the impugned judgments calls for interference. 5. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel further submits that the incident is of the year 2007 and the truck was loaded with bricks. He has also submitted that more than 17 years have elapsed from the date of the occurrence and during trial, the petitioner has remained in custody from 06.10.2007 to 16.10.2007 and at the stage of revision, he was taken into custody on 09.01.2017 and was released on bail vide order dated 18.01.2017 and a few days must have been taken by him to furnish the bail bond. The learned counsel has submitted that some sympathetic consideration may be given and the sentence be reduced. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there are concurrent findings with regard to rash and negligent driving by the petitioner. The victims and the eye-witnesses have supported the prosecution case. He submits that even if there were pot-holes on the road, it is for the driver to ensure proper driving. The learned counsel submits that two persons have died and the punishment is only for a period of one year for offence under section 304A IPC. He submits that the learned courts have themselves not awarded maximum punishment to the petitioner and have taken a lenient view. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not in dispute that the truck was being driven by the petitioner on 10.10.2007 at 6:30 am and it was loaded with bricks which was to be delivered. It further appears that a number of labourers were sitting on the truck. It was alleged that the petitioner was driving the truck rashly and negligently and one of the colleagues of the informant told the driver to drive the truck slowly but he did not pay any heed to such request and suddenly the truck turned turtle near a paddy land and due to accident, all the labourers including the informant received injuries and two of them, namely, Karu Das and Jeetan Ravidas ultimately died on account of injuries suffered due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner . 2 8. At the stage of trial, altogether seven witnesses were examined from the side of the prosecution and the statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. in which he denied the allegation. No defence evidence was led from the side of the defence. 9. The learned trial court considered the materials on record and it has come on record that P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 6 were the victims and were traveling on the truck. They have supported the prosecution case and have also been cross- examined. These witnesses have deposed that the petitioner was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. It has also come on record that the persons sitting on the truck had asked the petitioner to drive the truck slowly but he did not pay any heed to their request. The learned trial court recorded that almost all the witnesses are victims in the case who are also eye-witnesses to the occurrence. All the witnesses have narrated the fact that the driver of the truck had told them to ride on truck as he had to unload bricks, somewhere near Harahi village just ahead of DAV School. Although the passage was made with new clay and soil and it was a mud fill road. It has also been narrated that the truck was being driven rashly and negligently and they asked the driver to drive slowly, but the truck was driven with speed inspite of such request . The findings of the learned trial court is quoted as under: - “14. In the facts & circumstances of the case, as well as material as apparent witnesses P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.6 except P.W.5 Dr. Zafar Hassan and P.W.7 were labourers who have taken seat on the truck which was loaded with bricks and the driver of the truck had told them that the alleged truck bearing no. JH 02E 1248 loaded with bricks as to unload the bricks near Gaushala Road just ahead of DAV School in one Harahi village. Almost all witnesses have narrated that just ahead of DAV School, the truck had over turned due to the reason that it was driven away rashly and negligently. All witnesses have narrated the fact that the truck driver had told them that he has to unload the trucks and hence all of them have taken seat over the same. Since the driver of the truck was driving the truck rashly and negligently. Almost all witnesses have narrated that the incidence had taken place at around 8-9am in the morning. In cross- examination, P.W.3 had narrated that the paddy field filled with water it was Kachha passage (mud kilħroad). There was no any path on the road. The passage had been made with new clay and morung. They have told the driver to drive slowly. The accused counsel has raised doubt as to the point when Jeetan Ravidas had passed away. But the same fact had been contradicted by other witnesses that by the 3 time, he had brought at Parwati Clinic, Telaiya. Karu Das had passed away but Jeetan Ravidas was in serious condition. The accused counsel had further given the citation of Hon'ble High Court of Patna, Subhash Yadav Vs. State of Bihar 2003 (3) in Criminal Cases. But the factum of this case is quite different from one referred by Ld. Counsel for accused. Almost all witnesses are victims in the case who are also eye witnesses to the incidence. All have narrated the fact that the driver of the said truck had told them to ride on truck and he has to unload bricks, somewhere near Harahi village just ahead of DAV School. Although the passage had been just made with new clay and soil (morung) and it was mud kill road. This has also been narrated by almost all witnesses that driver of the truck was driven of the truck rashly and negligently and told him that to drive slowly but he had driven away fastly. Although there was heavy loaded on the truck and the truck had over turned in paddy field which was filled with water. In which both Jeetan Ravidas and Karu Das came underi the passage itself, Kanı Das passed away and Jeetan Ravidas had also passed after 2-3 hours. His fardbeyan has been recorded by ASI. Although IO of the case has not been examined but there is little significance for his examination. Since almost all witnesses have supported the fact of the case. Even P.W.5 Dr. Zafar Hassan has exhibited the Post-mortem report of deceased Jeetan Ravidas as Ext.2. He had also exhibited the post-mortem of Karu Das which was conducted by Dr. Rajeshwar Das as Ext 3. The signature of Kishor Ravidas, Homeguard who had exhibited his signature over inquest report as Ext.1 and Bahadur Das has exhibited his signature over inquest report as Ext. 1/1. Moresoever, this accused had himself admitted that he being the driver of the said truck this could be apparent vide his surrender cum bail petition dated 16.10.2007 which is on the record. Even the truck owner had corroborated the same vide the indemnity bond that has been submitted on behalf of him during the time of release of the said truck.” 10. The learned trial court convicted the petitioner for offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the IPC and sentenced as aforesaid. 11. The learned appellate court also considered the materials on record and conviction of the petitioner under Sections 337 and 338 of IPC was found to be erroneous, but upheld the conviction for offence under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. The learned appellate court recorded its finding in paragraph 10, which is quoted as under: - “Now, I come to another part of the case. As I have already stated that except three witnesses (P.W.4, P.W. 5 and P.W.6), other witnesses are alleged victim of the alleged occurrence. I find consistency in their evidence regarding the accident which took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the appellant/convict. I further find 4 that some of the witnesses like P.W.1 and P.W.2 could not identify the appellant/convict in the dock and did not claim to identify him but PW.3 and P.W.6 have identified the appellant/convict in the court. P.W.3 in para-7 of his cross-examination, has clearly stated that he was sitting by the side of the driver in the vehicle and other labours were also sitting in the cabin. P.W.6 has also Identified the appellant/convict who was present in the court room on the date of recording of testimony of this witness. If some of the victim could not identify the appellant/convict as driver of the vehicle, there is nothing wrong in it. Witnesses have categorically stated that vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver and due to rash and negligent driving, the truck turned turtle and in this accident, two persons including the informant died. Hence, I feel that the offence punishable u/ss.279 and 304A of the IPC clear cut establish against the appellant/convict. So far as the conviction of the appellant/convict u/ss. 337 and 338 of the IPC are concerned, I find that no witness has stated before the court that other persons had received injuries or grievous injuries on their person in the road accident. No injury report of other injured has been brought on the record. Hence, I feel that the offence punishable u. ss. 337 and 338 of the IPC do not make out in the present Case.” 12. This Court finds that both the learned courts after scrutinizing the materials on record have given concurrent findings regarding rash and negligent driving by the petitioner which resulted in death of two victims. Merely because there were some pot-holes as stated by P.W.-6 in his cross- examination that by itself is not make the impugned judgments perverse in any manner. All the witnesses have stated that the truck was being driven rashly and negligently in spite of the fact that they had asked the driver to drive the truck slowly. 13. This Court finds no reason to differ with the findings recorded by the learned courts. No perversity as such has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no scope for re-appreciation of materials on record and coming to a different finding in revisional jurisdiction in absence of any perversity. 14. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner for offence under section 279 and 304A as has been upheld by the learned appellate court is upheld. 15. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, this Court finds that two persons have expired due to accident and the learned trial court has given sentence only to the extent of one year for offence under Section 304A of IPC. 5 The appellate court has cited sound reasons for refusing to interfere with the sentence. This court finds no ground to interfere with the sentence of the petitioner merely because the F.I.R. is of the year 2007. 16. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. 17. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioner is hereby cancelled. 18. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. 19. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. Mukul (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 6