Binod Sao @ Vinod Sao vs The State Of Jharkhand

By Court:-

Heard the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner and Learned A.P.P. assisted by learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.2.

The instant criminal revision is preferred against the judgment dated 27^th July, 2017 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 52 of 2015 by the learned Dist. & Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Giridih, whereby and whereunder, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16^th September, 2015 passed in G.R. No. 216 of 2012 (T.R.

No. 20 of 2015) by the learned A.C.J.M., Giridih, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been convicted under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months under Section 279 of the IPC and further R.I. for one year six months with a fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 304A of the IPC, with default stipulation. All the sentences were directed to run, concurrently.

The factual matrix giving rise to this case is that on 02.05.2010, informant-Pappu Sao along with his father Chintamani Sao (deceased) was going to Dumri office from his office by foot and near Panchwati Nagar when they were crossing G.T. Road, a motorcycle bearing Reg. No. JH11C-4206 being driven by the driver rashly and negligently dashed his father who sustained injuries and brought to Dumri Hospital, immediately from where he was referred to PMCH, Dhanbad and died on the way.

On the basis of above written application of Informant, Dumri P.S. Case No. 13 of 2012 was registered against the driver of the said vehicle under Section 279/304A of the IPC.

After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case record was sent to the A.C.J.M., Giridih for trial and disposal. The charges were framed and read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which he pleaded to be innocent and claimed to be tried.

In the course of trial, altogether 6 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, apart from the documentary evidence.

On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence.

The learned trial Court after considering the evidence available on record held the petitioner guilty as sated above which was upheld by the learned Appellate Court.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that both the courts below have committed serious error of law while recording conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC. There is absolutely no evidence on record to establish rash and negligent driving at the relevant point of time by the present petitioner which is sine qua non for conviction for the aforesaid offence. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. and there is no eye witness to identify the petitioner driving the offending vehicle. The witnesses have subsequently improved their version and testified during trial as an eye witness of the occurrence identifying the petitioner. Therefore, testimony of the ocular witnesses is not trustworthy and reliable which has wrongly been accepted by the learned trial Court as well as appellate Court. The P.M. Report of the deceased proved by the Dr. P.W.-6 also does not disclose that the deceased sustained injuries due to vehicular accident. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by both Courts below is perverse and based upon beyond the weight of evidence hence liable to be set aside.

In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by co-ordinate bench of this Court in Birju Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. dated 28.08.2024 in Cr. Rev. No. 652 of 2018.

Per contra, Learned A.P.P. assisted by learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has defended the judgment of learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court on merits and has submitted that both the Courts below have very wisely and aptly considered the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner for his guilt warranting no interference in this revision which is fit to be dismissed.

I have gone through the record of case along with impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court as well as trial Court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of respective parties.

From the F.I.R., it is quite evident that on 02.05.2010, the informant along with his father was going to office by foot and while crossing G.T. Bye-Pass Road, near village Panchwati Nagar at about 6:30PM, in the meantime, a T.V.S. Victor Motorcycle being driven by its driver very rashly and negligently dashed the father of the informant due to which he sustained severe injuries and was brought to referral Hospital, Dumri with the help of villagers, thereafter, referred to P.M.C.H. Dhanbad who died on the way. P.W.-3 (Informant) has been examined as eye witness of the occurrence who has categorically corroborated the prosecution story as contained in the F.I.R. P.W.-2 and P.W.-4 have also corroborated the prosecution story. The said occurrence has also been proved by the Dr. (P.W.-6). It also appears that the petitioner has appeared in this case who has been granted bail as driver of the offending vehicle at the alleged time of the occurrence. The I.O. of this case P.W.-4 has also described the place of occurrence. He has also deposed that on 28.01.2012, the present petitioner Binod Sao appeared and was granted bail. The registration certificate of the vehicle was also produced which finds registration in the name of accused Binod Sao. Driving Licence and Insurance of the vehicle also produced and the petitioner also got the vehicle examined by the M.V.I. and received its report and thereafter, motor cycle was handed over to Binod Sao (petitioner). The evidence available on record as considered by the learned trial Court as well as appellate Court clearly establishes that the petitioner while driving the motorcycle has dashed the pedestrian which resulted in his death. There is no intervening circumstance or any other plea taken by the petitioner as to under what circumstance, the vehicle became beyond his control and dashed the deceased. The identity of the petitioner is also not disputed. The citation relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no relevance with the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, I find no merits in this revision to take a different view from the concerned learned appellate Court as well as trial Court.

So far as quantum of sentence of the petitioner as awarded by the learned trial Court is concerned, it is reduced to one year which would meet the ends of justice in this case for the offence under Section 304A of the IPC and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court under Section 279 is maintained.

In result, the instant criminal revision is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to the extent as mentioned above.

Consequently, the suspension of sentence granted to the petitioner vide order dated 30.08.2017 during pendency of this revision, is hereby cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court within two months from the date of this Judgment and undergo the remaining period of sentence awarded to him by the learned trial Court, failing which, the learned trial Court shall take all coercive steps for arrest and detention of the petitioner for sustaining the remaining period of sentence awarded to him by this Court.

Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.

Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)