Jharkhand High Court
Chokro Mundari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 February, 2023
Cr. Revision No.122 of 2016
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.122 of 2016
----------
Chokro Mundari ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Shyam Purty ... Opp. Parties
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P
---------
C.A.V. On : 25/01/2023 Pronounced On: 27/02/2023
Heard the parties.
This revision application is being disposed of at the stage of
admission itself.
The petitioner namely Chokro Mundari has preferred this revision
application against the judgment dated 05.01.2016, passed by Sri Pradeep
Kumar Srivastava, learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa
(as His Lordship was the then), in Cr. Appeal No.78/2015, whereby and
wherein, the learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa, affirmed the Judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 05.10.2015 passed by Sri Vishal
Srivastava, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, West Singhbhum at
Chaibasa, in connection with Muffasil (Pandrasali O.P) P.S Case
No.19/2011 corresponding to G.R No.59/2011, holding the petitioner
guilty of the offence under Sections 304-A and 279 of the Indian Penal
Code and thereby sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for
one year for the offence under Section 304-A of the I.P.C and simple
imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 279 of the
I.P.C. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
The case of the prosecution is that on 31.01.2011 at about 12 Noon,
the informant, Shyam Purty was going on his motorcycle bearing
registration No. JH-05T-1567 along-with his friend, Pandu Gagrai. When
they reached near Sangjata line hotel, a Tata Magic bearing registration
No. JH-06D-5865 being rashly and negligently driven, dashed the
motorcycle of the informant, causing injuries to both the informant and
Cr. Revision No.122 of 2016
his friend. His friend, Pandu Gagrai died in the said accident.
Petitioner is said to be the driver of the offending vehicle.
Both the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court
have come to concurrent findings regarding the guilt of the petitioner
Chokro Mundari for the offences under Sections 304-A/279 of the Indian
Penal Code.
Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that none of the eyewitnesses have identified the petitioner as
the person who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of
occurrence. In fact, prosecution witnesses have specifically stated that
they are not aware as to who was driving the offending vehicle. In such
facts and circumstances, both the learned Trial Court as well as learned
Appellate Court have come to an erroneous finding regarding the guilt of
the petitioner under Sections 304-A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code.
Accordingly, it was prayed that this application be allowed and the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial
Court below be set aside.
Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, learned A.P.P has submitted that the owner
of the offending vehicle namely Aditya Kumar Pati has been examined as
P.W.5. He has stated in the court that petitioner was the driver of the
vehicle at the time when the accident took place. Accordingly, it was
prayed that this revision application be dismissed.
From perusal of the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it
appears that none of the eye witnesses have identified the petitioner as
being the driver of Tata Magic bearing registration No. JH06D-5865, who
was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident.
Both the learned court below and the learned Appellate Court have
come to the conclusion about the guilt of the petitioner only on the
statement of the owner of offending vehicle Aditya Kumar Pati P.W.5 that
at the time of occurrence, the petitioner was employed as a driver of the
offending vehicle.
The fact that the petitioner himself surrendered before the Court
below along with documents of the vehicle including his driving licence
was found to be incriminating.
The petitioner may have been employed as a driver of the
Cr. Revision No.122 of 2016
offending vehicle at the time of accident, but it was incumbent upon the
prosecution to prove that at the time of accident, he was actually driving
the offending vehicle. The petitioner cannot be held guilty on the
probability that he was driving the offending vehicle at the time of
accident. His surrender before the learned Court below as the driver of
the offending vehicle cannot be held to be incriminating fact so as to hold
him guilty for the alleged accident. The prosecution has to stand on its
own legs. It cannot hide behind the fact that just because the petitioner
surrendered before the court below as the driver of the offending vehicle,
it will be presumed that he was driving the offending vehicle at the time
of accident. It cannot be a ground for his conviction, in absence of any
other cogent evidence that he was driving the offending vehicle at the
time of the accident, otherwise there will be no need to prove the identity
of the accused during trial.
Both the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court
have come to an erroneous finding for causing the accidental death of
Pandu Gagrai.
This revision application is accordingly, allowed.
The Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the
learned Trial Court in connection with Muffasil (Pandrasali O.P) P.S Case
No.19/2011, corresponding to G.R No.59/2011, T.R No.58/2015 is
hereby, set aside.
Pending I. A, if any, also stands disposed of.
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
BS/-
