Md. Mumtaz … v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
Cr. Revision No.561 of 2016 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 561 of 2016 Md. Mumtaz … … Petitioner - Versus - The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH ------ ----- For the Petitioner : M/s. N. K. Chatterjee, Advocate For the State : M/s. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P. C.A.V. on 02.03.2023 Pronounced on 11.05.2023 ----- 1. Heard the Parties. 2. The petitioner has filed this application against the judgment dated 23.04.2016 passed by Sri Abni Ranjan Kumar Sinha, learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in Criminal Appeal No. 09/2013, whereby and wherein the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla partly modified the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.01.2013, passed by Sri Vishal Srivastava, learned S.D.J.M., Gumla in connection with Palkot P. S. Case No. 32 of 2010, holding the petitioner guilty of offence under sections 279/ 338/ 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, and thereby sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under section 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned appellate court while upholding the judgment of conviction modified the sentence passed under section 279 of the Indian Penal Code by reducing it to simple imprisonment for three months. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Sahdeo Sahu, alleging therein that on 11.04.2010 at about twelve noon, his father Budhu Sahu was dashed by a bus bearing registration number JH-01-M-2639, which also turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving by its driver. Several persons were injured and two more persons died during the course of treatment. Cr. Revision No.561 of 2016 2 4. In order to prove its case the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. On the basis of the evidence on record the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner. 5. Learned lawyer appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. Police has not put him on Test Identification Parade. The identification of the petitioner by the witnesses for the first time in the dock cannot be the ground for holding the petitioner guilty. Accordingly, it was prayed that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned court below be set aside. 6. It is apparent that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. The FIR was registered against the driver of the Afsar bus bearing registration number JH-01-M-2639. Sahdeo Sahu has been examined as P.W.1. He has stated that his father died in an accident when he was hit by a bus which also turned turtle. He has proved his signature on the fardbeyan which is Ext.- 1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the petitioner was not identified in the Test Identification Parade. Dr. Krishna Prasad P.W.2 has proved the postmortem report of an unknown person which has been marked as Ext.- 2. Dr. Javed Anwar P.W.3 has proved the postmortem of the Budhu Sahu, Father of the informant which has been marked as Ext.- 2/1. 7. Sandip Mirdaha P.W.5, Banshi Mirdaha P.W.6, Sibu Mirdaha P.W.7, Dilip Mirdaha P.W.8, Binod Kachchap P.W.9 all have stated that on the date of occurrence, that is on 11.04.2010 at about twelve noon, Afsar bus had turned turtle due to which several persons were injured and three persons died. All these witnesses have identified the petitioner in the dock. Sandip Mirdaha P.W.5 has stated in his cross- examination that he had not told the police that he could identify the driver of the offending vehicle. Banshi Mirdaha P.W.6 has stated that he had not claimed to identify the driver before the police. Similarly, Sibu Mirdaha P.W.7 and Dilip Mirdaha P.W.8 has stated that they have not claimed to have identify the driver before the police. Dilip Mirdaha P.W.8 has also stated that had the petitioner not been Cr. Revision No.561 of 2016 3 standing in the dock, he couldn’t have identified him. Binod Kachchap P.W.9 has stated that he cannot be sure that the persons who was standing in the dock was driver of the offending vehicle. 8. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the sole ground for holding the petitioner guilty in committing the alleged offence is his identification in the dock for the first time. Petitioner is not named in the FIR. The investigating officer ought to have put the petitioner on Test Identification Parade, so as to confirm his identity that he was the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. From the statement of the witnesses regarding his identity in the dock, it appears that he was identified in the dock as he was present in the dock as an accused. Some of the witnesses have fairly admitted that they could not have identified the petitioner, if he was not standing in the dock during recording of their evidence. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 11.04.2010, statement of the witnesses identifying the petitioner was recorded after two and half years. 9. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the petitioner beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt that the petitioner was driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. 10. Both the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court have come to an erroneous finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner. 11. This Criminal Revision application is allowed. 12. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned court below is set aside.
Decision
13. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. Saurabh (Ambuj Nath, J.)