Gopal Yadav @ Gopal Prasad, son of Devnandan Yadav, resident of Village – Badali v. Coram: HON’BLE
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 550 of 2015 ------ Gopal Yadav @ Gopal Prasad, son of Devnandan Yadav, resident of Village – Badali, P.O. – Kapasheya, P.S. – Mufasil Pandeypur, District - Aurangabad (Bihar). The State of Jharkhand .... …. Petitioner .... .... Opp. Party Versus ------ Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Petitioner For the State : Ms. Renu Bala, Advocate. : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P. ------ ------ JUDGMENT CAV On Dated- 24.04.2024 Pronounced On 26.06.2024
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 19.09.2013 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Latehar in Criminal Appeal No. 02 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.12.2012 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in G.R. No. 404 of 2005 (T.R. No. 16 of 2012) arising out of Latehar P.S. Case No. 94 of 2005, whereby petitioner was convicted for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304(A) of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 279 I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months for Page 1 of 7 the offence under Section 337 I.P.C. and S.I. for one year for the offence under Section 338 I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year for the offence under Section 304A I.P.C., has been dismissed. 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that on 04.11.2005, the informant along with his wife Sangita Devi and daughter (Priya) aged about two months were going to his native village Chiyanki from Ranchi by hiring Maruti Van bearing registration No. JH-01L-1901 and at about 3.45 PM, when they reached near village Hotwag Pataki Jungle on Daltonganj road, meanwhile, one deep colour Mahindra Pick-up van without registration number being driven very rashly and negligently by its driver dashed to the Maruti Van causing severe injuries to the inmates of said Maruti Van. The driver of the said Maruti Van Umesh Pandey was died in the accident. The driver of Mahindra Pick-up Van managed to flee away. In course of treatment, one injured died. 4. Accordingly, after investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the accused Gopal Yadav (present petitioner) for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The accused-petitioner denied the substance of acquisitions explained to him and claimed for trial. In the course of trial, Page 2 of 7 altogether 05 witnesses including Dr. Shiv Pujan Sharma (P.W.-5) and some injured person and victims and following documentary evidences were also adduced by the prosecution. Exhibit- 1 : Signature of P.W.-2 Ajit Kumar on the fardbeyan. Exhibit 2 : Injury report of Ajit Kumar (P.W. 2) Exhibit 2/1 : Injury report of Smt. Sangita Devi, wife of Ajit Kumar. Exhibit 2/2 : Injury report of Priya (daughter of Ajit Kumar). Exhibit 2/3 : Injury report of deceased (Umesh Pandey) driver of the Maruti Van. 6. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 was recorded. The case of defence is plea of innocence and denial of occurrence. No oral and documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence. 7. The learned Trail Court, after appraisal of overall evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the present petitioner was driving the Mahindra Pick-up van very rashly and negligently at a very high speed and dashed the Maruti Van and all the passengers of the van have sustained severe injuries, two of them, namely, Umesh Pandey, the driver of the Maruti Van and Priya Kumari, two months female child of the informant, died in Page 3 of 7 the course of treatment, which clearly suggests that the driver of the offending vehicle (present petitioner) was not caring at all the public safety in his mind while driving the vehicle. There is not only two deaths, but also two in-mates, namely, Ajit Kumar and his wife Sangita Devi had also sustained grievous injuries. Hence, petitioner does not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence or the benefit of provision of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The petitioner was held guilty for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 279 I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 337 I.P.C. and S.I. for one year for the offence under Section 338 I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year for the offence under Section 304A I.P.C. and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 8. The petitioner has challenged his judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Learned Trial Court by preferring Criminal Appeal No. 02/2013 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Latehar which was heard and decided vide judgment dated 19th September, 2013, whereby and whereunder the impugned judgment of conviction and order and sentence passed by the Learned Trial Court has been upheld and confirmed and the Page 4 of 7 appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed, which has been assailed in this revision. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned judgment has submitted that the Investigating Officer of the case has not been examined and the Doctor, who conducted the autopsy of the dead body of the deceased persons in this case has also not been examined and post- mortem report is not brought on record to prove the cause of death. P.W. 5, Dr. Shivpujan Sharma has only proved the injury report of the injured persons. The prosecution witnesses P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 are not the eye witnesses of the occurrence, as such the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused/petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt because the judgments passed by both the Courts below suffers from perversity and fit to be set aside. 10. In alternative it is submitted that petitioner has been sufficiently punished for the offence and it was his first offence, but both the Courts below have failed to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act without recording any special reasons, to which the petitioner deserves. 11. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that it is a case where to persons have been died, due to Page 5 of 7 violent dashing by the petitioner while driving Mahindra Pick-up van in a very rash and negligent manner without caring about the life and safety of other persons. Injured persons have been examined in this case, who have identified the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle. The injury sustained by the injured persons have also been proved by P.W. 5 Dr Shivpujan Sharma, which corroborates the prosecution story and there is no doubt that two persons have been died and the case was converted to Section 304A of I.P.C. after the death of the injured persons. Therefore, the impugned judgments and order passed by the trial court as well as the appellate court does not suffer from any irregularity and infirmity in the eye of law. The sentence passed against the petitioner is also adequate and proportionate, rather taking a lenient view half of the maximum sentence has been passed. Hence, there is no merits in this revision, which is fit to be dismissed. 12. I have gone through the record of the case and judgments passed by learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court along with testimony of witnesses and exhibited documents and find no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgments and order, rather the same appears to be well-reasoned, well-considered. The sentence passed against the petitioner also does not require any interference. Page 6 of 7 13. In view of above discussions and reasons, I do not find any merits in this revision and no legal sanctity on the points raised on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, this revision petition is dismissed. 14. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to the court concerned for information and needful. Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 26/06/2024 Sunil/-NAFR (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Page 7 of 7