Jharkhand High Court
Bhola Paswan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1056 of 2008
Bhola Paswan ... ... Petitioner
- Versus -
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
------
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
-----
For the Petitioner : M/s. Sharda Kumari, Amicus Curiae
For the State : M/s. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P.
---
10/17.08.2023 Heard the parties.
The petitioner has filed this application against the
judgment dated 19.06.2008, passed by Sri G. K. Varma, learned
Sessions Judge Palamau, Daltonganj in Cr. Appeal No. 67 of 2008,
whereby and wherein the learned Sessions Judge Palamau,
Daltonganj partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner by affirming
the judgment of conviction and modifying the order of sentence
passed by Sri Onkar Nath Choudhary, learned J.M.F.C., Palamau,
Daltonganj in connection with G. R. Case No. 30 of 1997, arising
out of Bishrampur P. S. Case No. 03 of 1997, holding the petitioner
guilty of offence under sections 279/ 304(A) of the Indian Penal
Code and thereby sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 6 months for
the offence under section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and R. I. for
two years for the offence under section 304(A) of the Indian Penal
Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Learned appellate court modified the sentence passed
by the learned trial court and reduced the same directing the
petitioner to undergo R.I. for one and a half year for the offence
under section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code alongwith a fine of
Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation that the petitioner shall undergo
simple imprisonment for two months.
The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of
fardbeyan of the informant, Yad Ali, alleging therein that on
05.01.1997, he had hired a truck bearing registration number UGZ-
881 for transportation of paddy. When the truck reached near
Lohwa bridge in village Nawa, it turned turtle due to rash and
negligent driving by the petitioner. Several persons who were
travelling on the said truck sustained injury and it appears that two
persons namely, Somaru Rajwar and Sahjad Ansari died in the said
accident.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced
oral evidence. On the basis of the evidence available on the record
both the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court
have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the
petitioner.
From the perusal of the oral testimony of the
prosecution witnesses, it appears that Masidani P.W.1., Sabina Bibi
P.W.2, Panwa Devi P.W.3. and Saleeman Bibi P.W.4, all have stated
that on the date and time of accident, they were travelling on the
offending vehicle which turned turtle due to rash and negligent
driving by this petitioner. They have stated that they had sustained
injuries. All these witnesses in their cross-examination have stated
that they cannot identify the driver of the vehicle. Shamsher Ansari
P.W.5 has stated that occurrence took place at about 4 years ago at
about 03:00 A.M., about 40 persons were travelling on the truck
which turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving by the
petitioner. He has stated that 12-13 persons sustained injury and two
persons died in the accident. He has identified the petitioner in the
dock. In his cross-examination he has stated that he was not
acquainted with the driver from before but he had talked to driver
while travelling on the vehicle.
Kallu Mian P.W.6 has stated that the occurrence took
place four years ago. He was travelling on the offending vehicle
alongwith 30-40 persons which turned turtle due to rash and
negligent driving by the petitioner. He has further stated that several
persons were injured and two persons namely Sahjad Ansari and
Somaru Rajwar died in the said accident. He has identified the
petitioner in the dock. In his cross-examination he has stated that
occurrence took place at about 03:00 A.M.
Ms. Sharda Kumari, learned Amicus Curiae appearing
on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the prosecution has not
examined the doctor nor it has brought the postmortem report of the
deceased persons to show that the deceased persons had died in the
said accident.
It was further submitted that prosecution has also not
examined the investigating officer to prove the place of occurrence
as different persons have stated different place of occurrences.
Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the state
submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove its case
against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution has not examined the doctor to prove
the fact that the deceased persons had died in a road vehicular
accident. Only vague statement has come from the mouth of two
witnesses that two persons had died in the said accident. It has not
been mentioned as to what was the nature of injury sustained by
them and what was their cause of death. Apparently, the prosecution
has not been able to prove that the cause of death of these persons
had direct nexus with this accident. However, from the evidence
available on the record it transpires that the petitioner was driving
the offending vehicle on the date and time of occurrence.
Witnesses have stated that he was driving the vehicle
rashly and negligently. It further transpires that 30 to 40 persons
were travelling on the said vehicle. It is a clear-cut case where the
truck was being overloaded. Apart from carrying paddy. It was also
carrying 30 to 40 persons due to which this petitioner lost control of
the truck and accident took place. Several persons are said to have
been injured.
In view of the aforesaid discussion; I am of the opinion
that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the petitioner
for the offence under section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code
beyond all reasonable doubt. However, the prosecution has been
able to prove its case against the petitioner under section 279 of the
Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the
judgment of conviction passed by the learned court below holding
the petitioner guilty of offence under section 304(A) of the Indian
Penal Code is set aside. However, the judgment of conviction
passed by learned court below holding the petitioner guilty of
offence under section 279 of the Indian Penal Code is affirmed.
This case is of the year 1997, learned Amicus Curiae
appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
has remained in custody for about one month. Accordingly, the
sentence passed by the learned court below directing the petitioner
to undergo R.I. for 6 months for the offence under section 279 of
the Indian Penal Code is set aside. The sentence of the petitioner
under the aforesaid section is reduced to the period already
undergone by him during the trial as well as during the pendency of
this criminal revision.
This Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed
with the modification of sentence.
Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
Before parting, I would like to record my deep sense of
appreciation for M/s. Sharda Kumari, learned Amicus who has very
ably assisted this court during the hearing of this revision
application. Member Secretary, JHALSA is directed to pay
Rs.5,000/- to her as remuneration for her services rendered as
Amicus Curiae
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
Saurabh
Uploaded
