Jharkhand High Court
Lalan Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 731 of 2011
Lalan Mahto ... ... Petitioner
- Versus -
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
------
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
-----
For the Petitioner : M/s. K. P. Choudhary, Advocate
For the State : M/s. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
---
12/22.08.2023 Heard the Parties.
The petitioner has filed this application against the
judgment dated 20.07.2011, passed by Sri U. N. Mishra, learned
Additional Judicial Commissioner-I, Khunti, passed in Cr. Appeal
No. 32/2010, whereby and wherein, the learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner-I, Khunti dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and
upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
04.02.2010, passed by Sri Satya Prakash, learned S.D.J.M., Khunti
in connection with G. R. No. 625/2004, arising out of Murhu P.S.
Case No 53/2004, holding the petitioner guilty of offence under
sections 279, 337, 427 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and
thereby sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 6 months for each of the
offence under sections 279, 337 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code
and R.I. for one year for the offence under section 304(A) of the
Indian Penal Code alongwith a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of
payment of fine he was further directed to undergo simple
imprisonment for 3 months. All the sentences were ordered to run
concurrently.
The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of
fardbeyan of the informant Birsi Mundain, alleging therein that on
19.12.2004 at about 05:30 p.m., she was going on bicycle with her
husband Etwa Purty, when they reached near Neel factory, a
motorcycle being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the
petitioner, bearing registration number JH-01-G-5543 dashed their
cycle due to which her husband Etwa Purty sustained injuries and
later on succumbed to it.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution had adduced
both oral and documentary evidence. Both the learned trial court as
well as the learned appellate court have come to a concurrent
finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner.
Birsi Mundain P.W.1 is the informant of this case. She
has supported the case as made out in her fardbeyan and has stated
that about two years ago, she was going with her husband on a
bicycle, when they reached near Neel factory, a motorcycle being
rashly and negligently driven dashed their cycle due to which her
husband sustained injuries and later on succumbed to it. She has not
stated anything about the fact that the petitioner was driving the
offending vehicle at the time of accident.
Akhilesh Kumar Nayak P.W.2 is the eyewitness of the
occurrence. He has stated that on 19.12.2004 at about 05:00 P.M.,
when he reached near Neel factory, he saw that a motorcycle being
rashly and negligently driven bearing registration number JH-01-
5547, dashed a cycle, the cyclers sustained injury and later on the
injured succumbed to it. At paragraph four he has specifically stated
that the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle at the time of
accident. He has identified him in the dock. He has been cross-
examined at length. At paragraph 7 he has specifically stated that he
is eyewitness to the occurrence.
Budhuwa Munda P.W.3 is a hearsay witness. He
reached the place of occurrence after the accident had taken place
and he saw that Etwa Purty was lying in an injured condition.
However, this witness has stated that when he reached at the place
of occurrence, he saw that the petitioner was present there
alongwith his motorcycle. He has stated the registration number of
the motorcycle. He has further stated that the petitioner was
apprehended and detained by the local persons who were present at
the place of occurrence.
Dr. Ashwani Kumar Purty P.W.5 had examined the
informant who has also sustained injury and has stated that she has
sustained injury which was caused by hard and blunt substance. He
has further proved the injury report, which is Ext.- 1. He has further
stated that the petitioner has also sustained injuries in the accident.
He had also examined the petitioner and has proved his injury
report which is Ext.-2. He has further proved the postmortem report
of the deceased Etwa Purty which has been marked as Ext.- 4.
Though there is contradiction in the registration
number of the offending vehicle which has been stated in the First
Information Report as JH-01-G-5543 and in the statement of
witness Akhilesh Kumar Nayak P.W.2, who in his deposition has
stated the registration number as JH-01-5547, but there is evidence
on record that the petitioner was apprehended with his motorcycle
at the place of occurrence and he was handed over to the police.
This contradiction does not have any bearing on the merit of the
prosecution case.
From the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the
informant Birsi Mundain has stated that the accident took place due
to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. Akhilesh Kumar
Nayak P.W.2 is the eyewitness of the occurrence, he has stated that
he was present at the place of occurrence. He has further stated that
the occurrence took place due to rash and negligent driving by the
petitioner. Both these witnesses have stated that the petitioner was
apprehended at the place of occurrence.
The petitioner has also sustained injury in the accident
and Dr. Ashwani Kumar Purty has found injuries on his person.
Accordingly, the deceased Etwa Purty had died.
From the perusal of the postmortem report, it appears
that the deceased Etwa Purty had died due to injuries which was
sustained in a road vehicular accident.
Accordingly, the prosecution has been able to prove its
case against the petitioner for the offence under sections 279, 337,
427 and 304 (A) of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable
doubt.
Both the learned trial court as well as the learned
appellate court have rightly come to concurrent finding regarding
the guilt of the petitioner.
This Criminal Revision Application is dismissed.
Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
Saurabh
Uploaded
