Jharkhand High Court
Ranjit Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand And Another on 29 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 934 of 2015
Ranjit Yadav --- --- Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Another --- --- Opp. Parties
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath
---
For the Petitioner: Mr. Praveen Shankar Dayal, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P
---
04 / 29.08.2023 Petitioner has filed this revision application against the judgment dated
30.01.2015, passed by Syed Matloob Hussain, Additional Sessions Judge-XII,
Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 101/2014, whereby and wherein, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Dhanbad dismissed the appeal of the petitioner
and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.2014,
passed by Shri Ajay Kumar Guria, Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Dhanbad in
G.R. Case No. 4/2009 arising out of Tundi P.S. Case No. 1/2009, holding the
petitioner guilty of the offences under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A I.P.C
and thereby sentencing him to undergo S.I for six months along with a fine of
Rs. 500/- for the offence under section 279 I.P.C, S.I for six months along with
a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under section 337 I.P.C., S.I for six months
along with a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under section 338 I.P.C and S.I
for six months along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under section
304A I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo
S.I for 15 days. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of the
Informant Sadhan Chandra, alleging therein that on 01.01.2009 at about 4.30
pm, he came to know that his nephew Sushant Chandra has met with an
accident near Tundi Bridge. It was further alleged that a truck bearing
registration no. JH 11D 6370 dashed his nephew, due to which, he succumbed
to the injuries during course of treatment.
3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has adduced both oral and
documentary evidences. On the basis of materials 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.
4. Mr. Praveen Shankar Dayal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, submitted that P.W-5 Srikant Chandra is highly interested witness as
he is brother of the deceased. It is further submitted that his presence at the
place of occurrence is doubtful. It was further submitted that the Informant in
his fardbeyan, has not stated regarding the presence of Srikant Chandra (P.W-
5) at the place of occurrence.
5. From perusal of oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it appears
that Sudhir Chandra (P.W-1), Informant Sadhan Chandra (P.W-2), Sadhan
Dom (P.W-3) and Girdhari Mahto (P.W-4), all have stated that on 01.01.2009
at about 4.30 pm, after hearing about the occurrence, they went to the place of
occurrence and saw Sushant Chandra lying in injured condition after being
dashed by the truck bearing registration no. JH 11D 6370. Sadhan Dom (P.W-
3) has stated at para-2 of his deposition that the driver of the truck was handed
over to the police.
6. Srikant Chandra (P.W-5) is the brother of the deceased. He has stated
that on 01.01.2009 at about 4.30 pm, he was returning from picnic. When he
reached near place of occurrence, he saw that a truck bearing registration no.
JH 11D 6370 being rashly and negligently driven, dashed his brother, due to
which, he sustained injuries. He was immediately rushed to the PMCH,
Dhanbad for treatment. However, his brother died during course of treatment.
He has identified his signature on the inquest report, which has been marked
Ext.2. He claims to identify the petitioner as the driver of the delinquent vehicle
who was apprehended from Bhojudih barrier just after the occurrence. In his
cross-examination, he has reiterated that he is an eyewitness to the occurrence.
No suggestion has been put to this witness that he was not an eyewitness. He
has stated that his statement was recorded under section 161 Cr. P.C.
7. Dr. Sapan Kr. Sarak (P.W-6) is the doctor who performed post-mortem
on the dead body of the deceased Sushant Chandra. He found the following
ante mortem injuries on his person.
i. Crushed lacerated wound with surgical separation over middle front
leg with both tibia & tibula. On crushed pieces and stitched softness and
muscles found.
ii. Stitched would 7" with 11 stitches over inner side of right thigh and
knee.
iii. Abrasion:
(I) Multiple area in 2"x1" over lower part inner side of left knee.
(II) ¾ " x ¾ " over back of left elbow.
iv. Close fracture of lower part of left femur.
On dissection: skull found normal. Meninges and brain found pale. Both
lungs pale and both ventricles of heart and empty stomach contain 200
c.c of partially digested rice, pasty food and smell of alcohol. Bladder
partially full. All internal organs severally pale.
Time elapsed since death-12 to 18 hours.
According to this witness, death of the deceased was caused due to
haemorrhage and shock as a result of hard and blunt crushing force. He has
proved the post-mortem report which has been marked Ext.3.
8. Perused the post-mortem report (Ext.3). It appears that the findings of
the doctor (P.W-6) regarding injuries sustained and the cause of death is fully
corroborated by his oral testimony recorded during the trial.
9. From the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the prosecution has been able
to prove that the deceased Sushant Chandra died in a road vehicular accident.
Prosecution has also been able to prove that at the time of the accident,
petitioner was driving the delinquent vehicle. It is evident from the evidence of
Srikant Chandra (P.W-5) that the petitioner was driving the delinquent vehicle
rashly and negligently at the time of accident. There is nothing in his cross-
examination to doubt his veracity. Though, it has been argued that this
witnesses cannot be an eyewitness, but in his cross-examination, he has
reiterated that he is an eyewitness and defence has failed to shake his credibility
on this point. Non-examination of the I.O is not fatal to the case of the
prosecution as no suggestion was given to Srikant Chandra (P.W-5) that he was
not an eyewitness.
10. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the prosecution
has been able to prove its case against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences
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.
11. This revision application is dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands
disposed of.
(Ambuj Nath, J)
Ranjeet/
