Jharkhand High Court
Dilip Kumar Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 308 of 2012
Dilip Kumar Sinha, son of Late Mahabir Prasad, resident of
Village- Jamua, P.O.-Jamua, P.S.-Jamua, District-Giridih
... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P.
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
04/08.07.2021 Heard Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of Opposite
Party-State.
3. The present criminal revision petition is directed against
the judgment dated 06.02.2012 passed by the learned Principal
Sessions Judge, Giridih in Cr. Appeal No. 73/2009, arising out
of the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated
28.07.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class,
Giridih in G.R. Case No. 12/05 (Trial No. 439/09).
4. The appellate court confirmed the conviction of the
petitioner under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian
Penal Code and modified and reduced the sentence of Simple
Imprisonment for 02 years with fine of Rs.500/- to Simple
Imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.500/- for the
offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and
confirmed the sentences of Simple Imprisonment for six months
with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 279 of the Indian Penal
Code and Simple Imprisonment for six months with fine of
Rs.500/- under Section 337/338 of the Indian Penal Code and in
default of payment of the fines, to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for further one month for each fine and all the
sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Arguments of the Petitioner.
5. In course of arguments, the learned counsel for the
petitioner confines his arguments only on the point of sentences
imposed by the learned appellate court for the offences under
Sections 279, 337/338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
alleged occurrence is of the year 2005 and out of the maximum
punishment of six months, the petitioner has already remained
in custody for a period of two and a half months. He also
submitted that primarily the case is under Section 304A of the
Indian penal Code i.e. rash and negligent driving and the
petitioner has faced the rigours of the criminal case for more
than 15 years and accordingly, some sympathetic view may be
taken.
Arguments of the State.
7. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer
and has submitted that the there is no illegality or perversity in
the impugned judgements calling for any interference in the
revisional jurisdiction.
Findings of this Court
8. The prosecution case as per the fard-beyan of the
Informant is that on 03.01.2005 at about 9.30 A.M., one bus
bearing No. BHM-8114 overturned at village Dobra Bridge at
Bagodar-Saria Road due to rash and negligent driving by its
driver and two persons died on the spot and the Informant took
the injured persons to Government Hospital, Bagodar and
Referral Hospital, Sariya for their treatment.
9. On the basis of the fard-beyan, a formal F.I.R was
registered under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A of Indian Penal
Code and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was
submitted against the petitioner under the same sections. On
09.12.2005, the substance of accusation was explained to the
petitioner in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried.
10. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether 5
witnesses in support of its case. P.W.-1 is Dr. Awadheshwari
Prasad Narain Deo, P.W.-2 is Awdhesh Kumar who is the
Informant of the case, P.W.-3 is Harinandan Singh who is the
Investigating Officer of the case, P.W.-4 is Kamdeo Singh who
claimed to be an eye witness to the occurrence and P.W.-5 is
Jitan Mandal who has been declared hostile by the prosecution,
but he admitted that he had put his signature on the inquest
report which was marked as Exhibit- 3/2 and also stated that he
did not know on which paper, the police had got his signature.
The prosecution also exhibited certain documents. Exhibits- 1
and 1/1 are the post mortem reports of the two deceased
persons who died on the spot, Exhibit-2 is the signature of
informant on the fard-beyan, Exhibit-3 is inquest report of the
deceased Mahavir Mandal, Exhibits-3/1 and 3/2 are the
signatures of the Informant on it and P.W.-5 on the Inquest
report, Exhibit-4 is the written report, Exhibit-5 is the
endorsement of Officer-in-charge on the written report, Exhibit-
6 is the formal F.I.R., Exhibits-7 and 7/1 are the inquest report
of deceased Nawal Kishore Singh and signature of informant
on it, Exhibit-8 is the Fardbayan of Anil Kumar Vishwakarma,
Exhibit 8/1 is the inquest report of Damodar Prasad
Vishwakarma and Exhibit 9 is the M.V.I. Report dated
09.01.2005. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the
petitioner was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C wherein
he was in complete denial and claimed that he was falsely
implicated in the case.
11. P.W.-1 is the Doctor who had conducted the post-mortem
over the dead bodies of the deceased who had died on the spot
and he deposed that on 03.01.2005, he was posted as the
Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Giridih and he conducted the
post mortem examination over the dead body of one Mahavir
Mandal and he described the injuries as anti-mortem in nature.
The injuries were lacerated wound of size 1" x 1" bone deep on
occipital region of head. He found that the bone was fractured.
He also found that right interior 3rd to 6th ribs were fractured
and right lung was found lacerated and the cause of death was
shown to be head and chest injuries which were caused by hard
and blunt object and its impact. He also identified the post
mortem report under his signature as Exhibit-1. The Doctor
was fully cross-examined.
He further deposed that on the same day at 5 P.M., he also
conducted the post mortem examination over the second
deceased namely, Nawal Kishore Singh and found anti mortem
internal and external injuries on his body i.e. 2"x 2" inch into
right side back and right femur was found fractured. He also
found that right lung and liver were lacerated and as per his
opinion, the cause of death was hemorrhage and shock due to
above injuries caused by hard and blunt object and its impact.
He identified the post mortem report as Exhibit-1/1. He was
cross-examined on the post mortem report of the second
deceased as well.
12. P.W.-2 is the Informant of the case who, in his
examination-in-chief, stated that the occurrence took place on
03.01.2005 and at that time, he was going to Bagodar on a bus.
He stated that the petitioner was driving the vehicle bearing
number BHM-8114 very rashly and negligently and when the
vehicle reached at Dihbara Bridge at 10 A.M, it overturned and
two persons died on the spot and he also received injury. He
further stated that at the place of occurrence, the police officer
Sri H.N. Singh had come and recorded his statement and he
had put his signature on the statement and on identification, his
signature was marked as Exhibit-2. He claimed to identify the
accused. He also identified the inquest reports of both the
deceased and identified his signatures as Exhibits- 3 and 3/1.
He was also fully cross-examined on behalf of the defence.
13. P.W.-3 is Harinandan Singh, the Investigating Officer of
the case. He stated that he had recorded the re-statement of the
informant and the witnesses namely, Kamdev Singh and Jitan
Mandal and on 16.01.2005, he had received the fardbeyan of
Anil Kumar Vishwakarma recorded by A.S.I. Krishna Ram and
the same was marked as Exhibit-8. The inquest report was
enclosed with Exhibit-8 and was marked as Exhibit 8/1. He also
exhibited the M.V.I. report prepared by Sri Buddhinath
Choudhary and identified his writing and signature and was
marked as Exhibit-9. He had received the post mortem report of
Damodar Prasad Vishwakarma and further stated that on the
basis of investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the
petitioner. He has been thoroughly cross-examined on behalf of
the defence. He also fully supported the prosecution case.
14. P.W.-4 is Kamdev Singh. He stated that the bus bearing
No. BHM-8114 was being driven very fast by the driver which
dashed near the bridge and overturned due to which two
persons namely, Nawal Kishore Singh and Mahavir Mandal
had died and one Damodar Vishwakarma was injured and also
stated that the accident had taken place due to negligence of the
driver (the present petitioner) and claimed to identify him. He
was also fully cross-examined on behalf of the defence. He
stated that at the relevant point of time, he was going to ration
shop. He has also fully supported the prosecution case.
15. The learned trial court considered the evidence on record
and other materials and found that the informant is an eye
witness to the occurrence and P.W.-4 Kamdev Singh is an
independent witness who was a chance witness to the
occurrence. The learned trial court further recorded that the
version of the Informant has been fully corroborated by the
evidences of the Doctor and the Investigating Officer and it is
well proved that the petitioner was driving the bus so rashly
that the bus overturned which indicates that the petitioner was
rash and negligent in driving the vehicle causing death of three
persons and injury to 15 to 20 persons. The learned trial court
was of the view that the prosecution has well established by
direct evidence that the death had happened as a direct result of
rash and negligent act of the petitioner and the act was
proximate and efficient cause without intervention of
negligence of another. The M.V.I. Report proved that there was
no mechanical fault in the said bus at the time of accident. The
learned trial court also recorded that the petitioner has failed to
suggest any cogent reason for the said accident and has also
failed to give adequate explanation regarding the accident. The
learned trial court held that there was direct nexus between the
death of the persons and rash and negligent act of the
petitioner.
16. The learned trial court also fully considered the evidence
of P.W.-4 being an independent and a chance witness who has
also fully supported the prosecution case with regard to the
occurrence. The learned trial court was of the view that the
place of occurrence, time of occurrence, mode of occurrence,
manner of occurrence and the genesis of the occurrence are well
proved on the basis of the evidences adduced by the
prosecution and there is no deviation in the statements of the
prosecution witnesses regarding the manner of occurrence in
the case. The learned trial court held that in such circumstances,
the prosecution has well proved the charges for offences under
Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code
against the petitioner beyond the shadow of all reasonable
doubt and accordingly, convicted the petitioner.
17. The learned appellate court also considered the evidences
on record and discussed the evidence of P.W.-2 in Para-8 and
recorded that P.W.-2 Awadhesh Kumar, Informant has claimed
to be an eye witness to the accident as one of the passengers of
the offending vehicle. According to his evidence, on 03.01.05,
when he was going to Bagodar on Vikrant Bus, then at about 10
A.M., the vehicle overturned near Dihbara Bridge due to rash
and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver Dilip Kumar
Sinha (the present petitioner) and due to the said accident, two
persons namely, Nawal Kishor Singh and Mahavir Mandal died
at the spot and other passengers were also injured. He has
further stated that he also got injured. He has proved the
written report containing his signature which has been marked
as Exhibit-2. He has remained intact during his cross-
examination and there is nothing appearing in his evidence to
disbelieve or discard his testimony. The learned appellate court
further found that P.W.-4 is another eye-witness and he has
supported the factum of the occurrence with regard to rash and
negligent driving by the petitioner due to which the accident
took place and two persons died on the spot and other
passengers got injured.
18. The learned appellate court confirmed the conviction of
the petitioner under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the
Indian Penal Code, however considering facts that the
petitioner had undergone the agony of trial for about 7 years
and that longer period of imprisonment would ruin his family
life, reduced the substantive sentence for the offence under
Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code to six months and
maintained the sentences imposed by the learned trial court for
offences under Sections 279 and 337/338 of the Indian Penal
Code and also maintained the quantum of fines awarded by the
learned trial court with default clause and all the sentences
were directed to run concurrently and dismissed the criminal
appeal on merits.
19. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
going through the impugned judgments and the lower court
records of the case, this Court finds that as per the prosecution
case, the petitioner was the driver of a Bus bearing registration
No. BHM-8114 which over-turned on the road due to rash and
negligent driving by the petitioner and two persons died on the
spot and 15-20 persons got injured. The informant of the case
took the injured persons to the Government Hospital Bagodar
and Referral Hospital, Saria for their treatment.
20. This Court further finds that the prosecution witnesses
including the eye-witnesses i.e. P.Ws.-2 and 4 as well as the
Investigating Officer i.e. P.W.-3 have fully supported the
prosecution case. The Doctor (P.W.-1), who had conducted the
post mortem over the dead bodies of the two deceased, has
proved the post-mortem reports as Exhibits-1 and 1/1 and he
has corroborated the prosecution case.
21. This Court finds that both the learned courts below have
carefully scrutinized all the materials on record and have
returned concurrent findings regarding the rash and negligent
driving by the petitioner which ultimately led to overturn of the
bus leading to death of two persons on the spot and causing
injuries to several other persons. Both the learned courts below
also recorded concurrent findings with regard to the conviction
of the petitioner for offences under Sections 279, 337/338 and
304A of the Indian Penal Code. This Court finds no illegality or
perversity in the impugned judgments of conviction of the
petitioner calling for interference under revision jurisdiction.
22. This Court finds that the date of incident is 03.01.2005 and
the petitioner surrendered before the learned court below on
11.01.2005 and there is nothing on record that the petitioner had
ever assisted in taking the victims to the hospitals.
23. This Court further finds that considering the mode and
manner in which the offence has been committed and also the
totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned
appellate court has already taken a lenient and sympathetic
view in favour of the petitioner by reducing the substantive
sentence for offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal
Code from two years to six months and therefore, the sentence
of the petitioner does not call for any further reduction.
24. In view of the aforesaid findings, the conviction as well as
the sentences of the petitioner passed by the learned appellate
court is upheld. Accordingly, the present criminal revision
petition is dismissed.
25. Bail bond furnished by the petitioner is cancelled.
26. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
27. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
28. Let the lower court records be sent back to the court
concerned.
29. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned
court below through 'E-mail/FAX'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul/Saurav
