Jharkhand High Court
Silas Barjo @ Silash Barjo vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1528 of 2015
-------
Silas Barjo @ Silash Barjo ...... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... .... Opp. Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, A.P.P
--------
07/ Dated 14.08.2023
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has filed this application against the judgment dated
17.10.2015, passed by Sri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, learned Sessions Judge,
West Singhbhum at Chaibasa (as His Lordship was the then) in Criminal Appeal
No.48/2015, whereby and wherein, the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum
at Chaibasa, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 20.07.2015, passed by Sri Arjun Saw,
learned S.D.J.M., Porahat at Chaibasa in G.R. Case No.224/2010, holding the
petitioner guilty of the offences under Sections 279 & 304(A) of the Indian Penal
Code and thereby, sentencing him to undergo R.I for one year for the offence
under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and S.I for three months for the
offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were
ordered to run concurrently.
The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of the
informant Ganeshwar Singh that on 07.09.2010 at about 12 Noon, his elder
brother was going to Anandpur Bazar, on vehicle bearing registration No.
JH05AB-2710. His brother was sitting in rear seat on the offending vehicle. When
the vehicle reached near Maldungri chowk, his brother was thrown outside the
vehicle as the petitioner was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently at a very
high speed. The brother of the informant succumbed to his injuries.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and
documentary evidence. Both the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate
Court have come to the concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner.
Sanni Singh P.W.1, Kiradhar Singh P.W.2, Bikam Singh P.W.4, Akalu
Singh P.W.5 and Rajender Singh P.W.6, all have stated that on the date and time of
the occurrence, they were traveling on the offending vehicle with the deceased.
They have stated that the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle at a very
high speed. According to these witnesses, due to rash and negligent driving by the
petitioner, the deceased Karampal Singh was thrown outside the vehicle, due to
which, he sustained injuries and later on, succumbed to it. These witnesses have
been cross-examined at length. All these witnesses have stated that the vehicle
was being driven at a speed between 80 to 90 KMPH.
Ganeshwar Singh P.W.3 is the informant of the case. He is not the
eyewitness of the occurrence.
Dr. Shiv Lal Kunkal, P.W.7 had performed the postmortem on the dead
body of the deceased. He has found the following ante-mortem injuries:
(I) Blood clot present in right ear. Blood present in both nostril.
(II)Abrasion present on right knee and right palm.
(III) Lacerated wound in occipital area of head 2" x 1" x bone deep.
On Dissection:
(IV) Head meninges lacerated and pale.
Thorax- Heart left chamber empty. Right chamber contains blood.
Lungs- Both side empty.
Abdomen-stomach undigested food.
According to this witness, Cause of death of the deceased was due to
Hemorrhage and shock due to fall on hard and blunt substance.
He has proved the postmortem report which is Exhibit-2. According to this
witness, the aforesaid injuries can be caused by fall from a height.
On the perusal of the postmortem report, Exhibit-2, it transpires that the
finding of Dr. Shiv Lal Kunkal regarding the injury sustained by the deceased and
the cause of his death is corroborated by his oral testimony before the Court.
From the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, it is evident that the
prosecution has been able to show that on 07.09.2010 at about 12 Noon, the
deceased was traveling on a vehicle, driven by the petitioner. The vehicle was
being driven rashly and negligently, due to which, the deceased was thrown
outside the vehicle, due to which, he sustained injuries and succumbed to it.
Both the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court have rightly
come to the finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner for the offences under
Sections 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned court below does not
require any interference. As such, this revision application is dismissed.
Pending I.A., if any, also stands dismissed.
BS/ (Ambuj Nath, J.)
