Birendra Prasad Mehta son of Yugeshwar Prasad Mehta resident of Dhab, P.O.-Kharagpur Police Station-Hariharganj v. ….. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 626 of 2015 Birendra Prasad Mehta son of Yugeshwar Prasad Mehta resident of Dhab, P.O.-Kharagpur Police Station-Hariharganj, District-Palamau The State of Jharkhand Versus ….. …… Petitioner ……Opposite party For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shreshta, Spl.P.P. Advocate
Legal Reasoning
---------- PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ----- JUDGMENT C.A.V. On 10.04.2024 Pronounced On: 17.05.2024 1. The instant Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 24.04.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, V, Palamau at Daltonganj in Criminal Appeal No. 153 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner against Judgment of conviction dated 30.11.2012 and order of sentence dated 31.12.2012 passed by learned CJM, Palamau in G.R. No. 381 of 2003 whereby petitioner was held guilty for the offence under Sections 279 and 304- A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and one year for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code has been confirmed and appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Factual matrix giving rise to this Revision is that on 21.03.2003 at about 05.00 p.m. informant’s wife one Punita Devi was returning to her house by the side of the road, meanwhile, truck bearing registration no. JH 01C 9621 being driven rashly and negligently by the present petitioner dashed her near Satbarwa. The family members and local villagers rushed towards RIMS Ranchi for her treatment but in the way she died. 3. In connection with above accident Palamau Sadar P.S. Case No. 75 of 2003 dated 22.03.2003 was lodged. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the driver of the truck bearing registration no. JH 01C 9621 for the aforesaid offences. The trial court held the appellant guilty and sentenced him as stated above. The appellate court has also confirmed the judgment of the trial court finding no illegality or infirmity which has been assailed in this Revision. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the concurrent findings of court below mainly on the following grounds:- (i) MVI report of the vehicle, inquest report of the deceased, post mortem report and FIR has not been duly proved in this case and investigating officer was also not examined. All these factors are sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution case. (ii) The Doctor conducting autopsy on the body of the deceased has not been examined, hence, cause of death is not proved by prosecution. (iii) Out of five ocular witnesses none of them have been able to prove that the petitioner was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. (iv) The witnesses have given contrary story as regards manner of occurrence and no one has been able to identify the petitioner as the driver of the vehicle. (v) It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case altogether 5 witnesses were examined. Out of them P.W. 1, Basant Tiwari, P.W. 2 Chandan Kumar Tiwari and P.W. 5 Parikshit Tiwari have claimed to be eye witnesses of the occurrence. They have categorically deposed that the deceased was crossing the road negligently, hence, she was dashed by a truck. The learned trial court has failed to consider 2 Cr. Revision No. 626 of 2015 that the accident has not occurred due to negligent driving by the petitioner rather negligence on the part of the deceased herself. (vi) The petitioner has been sentenced disproportionate to his guilt. The learned trial court as well as learned appellate court has failed to specify any special reason for not granting the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act in favour of petitioner. (vii) The petitioner has become too old to drive any vehicle and has left driving of any vehicle since long. (viii) The accident is of the year 2003 and petitioner has fully co- operated during trial of the case and also remained in custody for some months during the said period. Under such circumstances, petitioner may be extended benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and may be released on furnishing probation bond or sentenced with imprisonment already undergone. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed its reliance upon the Judgment rendered in the case of Tufani Bhuiyan & Ors. Versus State Of Jharkhand reported in 2006 (1) East Cr C 324 (Jhr), Pankaj Bibhuti & Ors. Versus State Of Jharkhand reported in 2005 (4) East Cr C 310 (Jhr) & Sowan Kisku & Ors. Versus State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) reported in 2006 (2) East Cr C 99 (Jhr). 6. On the other hand, learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of petitioner and submitted that there are concurrent findings regarding guilt of the present petitioner for the offences under Section 279 and 304-A IPC and for such offences the benefit of provision of Offenders Act could not be extended with a view to preserve the public safety and prevention of frequent road accident by passing a retrospective punishment of substantive imprisonment. Hence, this Revision is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. 3 Cr. Revision No. 626 of 2015 7. I have gone through the record of the case and also considered the respective points of argument raised on behalf of both sides. It appears that accident has happened in this case while the deceased lady was crossing the road in a haste and was dashed by the moving truck passing through the road. The occurrence is of year 2003 and now more than 20 years have been lapsed and petitioner has also remained in custody during trial and the petitioner has also remained in custody during trial for some month and now has become a old person and left the driving of vehicle. 8. Considering the circumstances of the petitioner the imprisonment already undergone by him during the trial appears to sufficient punishment, therefore, impugned Judgment and order passed by learned trial court is upheld with modification in sentence to the extent that instead of undergoing aforesaid period of imprisonment as awarded by learned court below the petitioner is sentenced with imprisonment already undergone in the custody. Accordingly, this
Decision
Criminal Revision is disposed of. 9. Let a copy of this Order alongwith LCR be sent to the court below for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi Date: 17 /05/2024 Rajnish/- N.A.F.R. 4 Cr. Revision No. 626 of 2015