Jharkhand High Court
Praveen Kumar Aditya @ Pravin ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 375 of 2016
Praveen Kumar Aditya @ Pravin Kumar Aditya --- Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Opp. Party
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath
---
For the Petitioner: Ms. Satya Satakshi, Amicus Curiae
For the State: Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl..P.P
---
06 / 04.08.2023 Petitioner Praveen Kumar Aditya has filed this revision application
against the judgment dated 04.01.2016, passed by Shri Niraj Kumar Srivastav,
Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 199/2013,
whereby and wherein, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Dhanbad
dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 15.05.2013, passed by Shri Manoj Kr. Prajapati,
learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. Case No. 4265/2005
arising out of Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No. 658/2005, holding the
petitioner guilty of the offences under sections 279/337/338 and 304-A I.P.C
and thereby sentencing him to undergo S.I for three months each for the
offences under sections 279 and 337 I.P.C and S.I for one year each for the
offences under sections 338 and 304-A I.P.C. All the sentences were ordered to
run concurrently.
2. Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the written report of the
Informant Rajesh Kumar Paswan alleging therein that on 25.10.2005 at about
6.15 a.m. he was going to Manaitand along with his grandfather. When he
reached near Manaitand, a Hero Honda Splender motorcycle bearing
registration no. JH 10H 2354 being rashly and negligently driven, dashed his
grandfather, due to which, he sustained injuries. Later, his grandfather died on
the way to the hospital.
3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has adduced both oral and
documentary evidences. Both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned
Appellate Court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the
petitioner.
4. The Informant Rajesh Kumar Paswan has been examined as P.W-5. He
has supported the allegation made out in his written report. He has stated that
on 25.10.2005 at about 6.15 a.m., when he was going to Manaitand along with
his grandfather Prakash Ram, a motorcycle bearing registration no. JH 10H
2354 dashed his grandfather, due to which, he succumbed to the injuries. He
has stated that the motorcycle was being rashly and negligently driven by the
petitioner. He has identified the petitioner in the dock.
He has been cross-examined at length. In his cross-examination, he has
stated that after the accident, his grandfather was taken to the hospital where he
was declared brought dead.
5. Shanni Kumar (P.W-1), Lakhman Prasad (P.W-2), Umesh Kr. (P.W-3)
and Avinash Bahadur (P.W-4), all have claimed to be eyewitnesses of the
occurrence. They have stated that on the date of occurrence, grandfather of the
Informant namely, Prakash Ram was dashed by a motorcycle, due to which, he
succumbed to his injuries. All these witnesses have stated that accident had
taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the petitioner.
All these witnesses have been cross-examined at length. There is nothing
in their cross-examination to doubt their veracity.
6. Dr. Shailendra Kumar (P.W-6) is the doctor who performed post-mortem
on the dead body of the deceased Prakash Ram. According to him, no ante
mortem external injuries were found on the person of the deceased. Blood clots
were found all over the back of the head. He opined that death was caused due
to hard blunt force injuries of head and brain. He has proved the post-mortem
report which is Ext.-3.
7. On perusal of the post-mortem report, it appears that findings of the
doctor (P.W-6) regarding the injury sustained by the deceased and cause of
death corroborates his oral testimony made in the court during the trial.
8. From the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the deceased Prakash Ram
has sustained injuries in the accident after he was hit by a motorcycle bearing
registration no. JH 10H 2354. Witnesses have corroborated each other on the
fact that the motorcycle in question was being driven by the petitioner and
accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the petitioner.
The deceased Prakash Ram died in the said accident.
9. As discussed above, prosecution has been able to prove its case against
the petitioner for the offences under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A I.P.C
beyond all reasonable doubt. Both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned
Appellate Court have rightly come to the findings regarding the guilt of the
petitioner for the offences under section 279, 337, 338 and 304-A I.P.C.
Accordingly, judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the
learned Trial Court against the petitioner for the offences under sections 279,
337, 338 and 304-A I.P.C, so affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, does not
require any interference.
10. This revision application is dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands
disposed of.
11. Before parting, I would like to record my deep appreciation for
Ms. Satya Satakshi, learned Amicus Curiae for very ably assisting this court
during course of hearing of this revision application. Member Secretary,
JHALSA is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- by way of remuneration to Ms. Satya
Satakshi for her services rendered as an Amicus Curiae in this case.
(Ambuj Nath, J)
Ranjeet/
