Jharkhand High Court
Budheswar Das vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 September, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 845 of 2012
Budheswar Das ... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
Through: Video Conferencing
05/15.09.2021
1. Heard Mr. Saurav Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the opposite party-State.
Arguments of the petitioner
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been convicted for offence under Sections 279 and 304-A of
Indian Penal Code alleged to be driver of the offending vehicle, but
neither there is any evidence on record nor there is any finding by the
learned court below that it was the petitioner who was driving the
offending vehicle. He further submits that a specific plea was raised
before the learned appellate court that no witness has identified the
petitioner as a driver of the offending vehicle at the time of alleged
accident and there was no definite finding of the learned court below
that the petitioner was driving the said truck at the time of accident in
a negligent manner. He submits that the learned appellate court has
recorded at para-8 of the impugned judgment that though P.W.-1 Arun
Kumar says the number of said truck as BR 16B 9890, whereas the
informant-P.W.-2 Bhupendra Singh Bhatiya says the number of said
truck as BR 16B 9809. The learned appellate court held that it is
simply a numerical error. The truck was left by the driver at the spot
and the investigating officer-P.W.-3, who investigated the place of
occurrence, says that the accident took place in front of Tata Pigment,
where the deceased was lying dead and the said truck bearing
Registration No. BR 16B 9809 was also standing and therefore it was
very much clear that the truck bearing Registration No. BR 16B 9809
was involved in the said accident. It is submitted that P.W.-3, the
investigating officer, has stated that after investigation, he submitted
charge-sheet against the accused driver of the said truck, as the
accident took place by the said truck.
4. The learned counsel submits that there is no material on record
to show, as to how and in what manner, the petitioner is involved with
the alleged offence and even the investigating officer in his deposition
has not stated the manner, in which, the petitioner has been implicated
in the case. The learned counsel submits that in absence of any
materials on record to show that it was the petitioner who was driving
the offending vehicle, conviction of the petitioner for the alleged
offence is ex-facie perverse and is fit to be set-aside. Apart from this,
he has also submitted that there is no finding by the learned trial court
that the vehicle was being driven in rash and negligent manner. He
submits that if the first point finds favour for the petitioner, the second
point need not be gone into, as it is the case where there is no evidence
that the petitioner was driving the said vehicle.
Arguments of the opposite party-State
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-
State, on the other hand, while responding to the argument of the
learned counsel for the petitioner on the point of no evidence, so far as
involvement of the petitioner being the driver of the offending truck is
concerned, he is not in a position to show any material that it was the
petitioner who was driving the offending vehicle at the time and place
of occurrence, either from the impugned judgments or from the
evidences on record including the evidence of the investigating officer
which was fully read over by the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner during the court proceedings .
6. Arguments are concluded.
7. Post this case on 28th September, 2021 for judgment.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
