Jharkhand High Court
Ashok Kumar Pandit vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 471 of 2016
Ashok Kumar Pandit --- --- Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Opp. Party
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath
---
For the Petitioner: Mr. Aditya Kumar, Amicus Curiae
For the State: Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Spl.P.P
---
05 / 20.07.2023 Petitioner-Ashok Kumar Pandit has filed this revision application against
the judgement dated 21.06.2004, passed by the Shri Gautam Kumar
Choudhary, Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Dhanbad (As his Lordship was
then) in Criminal Appeal No. 41/2000, 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 08.03.2000,
passed by Shri Akhilanand Dubey, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Dhanbad passed in G.R. No. 2326/1994 arising out of Putki P.S. Case No.
68/1994, holding the petitioner guilty of the offences under sections
279/304A/427 I.P.C and thereby sentencing him to undergo R.I for three month
for the offence under section 279 I.P.C and R.I for one year for the offences
under sections 304A and 427 I.P.C. All the sentences were ordered to run
concurrently. Period already undergone by the petitioner during the trial was
ordered to be set off.
2. Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of written report of the
Informant namely Ram Chandra alleging therein that on 23.06.1994 at about
3.00 pm, he was sitting outside his house. He saw that a dumpher dashed a
motorcycle near Kar Kendra on Dhanbad-Bokaro Road. Driver of the
motorcycle succumbed to the injury.
3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has adduced both oral and
documentary evidences. 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. Aditya Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, submitted that none of the prosecution witnesses have identified the
petitioner as the person who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of
accident.
5. Mr. P.D. Agrawal, learned Special P.P, has conceded this fact.
6. From perusal of oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it is
apparent that the witnesses have stated that on 23.06.1999, there was an
accident between the dumpher bearing registration no. BHW-7735 and a
motorcycle. Driver of the motorcycle died in the accident. Prosecution has also
examined Dr. Shailendra Kumar (P.W-4) who has proved the post-mortem
report of the deceased Prabhat Kumar Sandil which has been marked as Ext.-2.
Dr. Shailendra Kumar (P.W-4) has stated that the deceased died due to the
injury sustained in the road vehicular accident.
7. However, from perusal of oral testimony of all the prosecution
witnesses, it transpires that nobody has identified the petitioner as the person
who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the prosecution
has failed to prove its against the petitioner for the offences alleged under
sections 279, 304A and 427 I.P.C beyond all reasonable doubt. Both the
learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court have come to an
erroneous findings regarding the guilt of the petitioner. Accordingly, the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court,
so confirmed by the learned Appellate Court, is set aside.
9. This revision application is allowed. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed
of.
10. Before parting, I would like to record my appreciation for the valuable
assistance rendered by Mr. Aditya Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae, during
hearing of this revision application. Learned Member Secretary, JHALSA is
directed to pay Rs. 3,500/- to Mr. Aditya Kumar by way of remuneration for
his services rendered as an Amicus Curiae in this case.
(Ambuj Nath, J)
Ranjeet/
