Jharkhand High Court
Prakash Kumar Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 November, 2024
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1405 of 2006
[Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated
31.08.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Court No. 7, Hazaribag in Sessions Trial No.545 of 2004 ].
1. Prakash Kumar Mahto.
2. Nand Kishor Mahto @ Nand Kishor Kumar Mahto.
(1) & (2) both are sons of Padum Mahto.
3. Padum Mahto, Son of Sri Jitan Mahto.
All are residents of Barkagaon, Police Station -
Barkagaon, District - Hazaribagh.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
.....
For the Appellants : Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Advocate.
Ms. Kumari Ranjana Singh, Adv.
Mr. Diwakar Jha, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Prabir Chatterjee, Spl.P.P.
.....
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
By Court: Heard Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel
for the appellants and Mr. Prabir Chatterjee, learned
Spl.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. Above named appellants have preferred this criminal
appeal challenging their judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 31.08.2006 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 7,
Hazaribag in Sessions Trial No. 545 of 2004, whereby
and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty
for the offence under Section 304A of the I.P.C. and
sentenced to undergo S.I. for two years.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a
narrow compass is that on 19.06.2004 Saturday at
about 12:20 hours the informant Suresh Mahto with
his nephew Rahul Kumar and son Pappu Kumar had
gone to visit Rath Mela at Barakagaon. In the
meantime, the nephew of the informant Rahul Kumar
went to buy gram neaby and a Jhula which was
projected near the gram shop, broken down of axle
wheel roller fell on forehead of Rahul Kumar and due
to that he died on the spot and several other persons
were inflicted serious injuries.
4. On the basis of above information, FIR being
Barkagaon P.S. Case No. 50 of 2004 was registered for
the offence under Section 304 of the I.P.C. against the
owner of the said Jhula namely, Padum Mahto and his
two sons.
5. After completion of investigation, the I.O. of the case
has submitted charge sheet under the same section.
After submission of charge sheet, the cognizance was
taken and the case was committed to the court of
Sessions, where the charge was framed under Section
304 of the I.P.C., to which the appellants pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against
accused person, altogether ten witnesses were
examined by the prosecution.
7. Apart from oral evidence of ocular witnesses, following
documentary evidences were also adduced.
Exhibit-1 : Post mortem report.
Exhibit-2 : Inquest Report.
Exhibit-3 : Formal F.I.R.
8. The case of defence is that appellants are innocent
persons and have committed no offence at all.
However, no oral or documentary evidence has
been adduced by the defence.
9. The learned trial court, after evaluating the evidence
available on record, held the appellants guilty for the
offence under Section 304A of the I.P.C. and
sentenced as stated above.
10. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 31.08.2006,
this Criminal Appeal has been preferred on behalf of
the appellant.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that
appellant nos. 1 & 2 are the young boys around 25
years old at the time of relevant misfortunate
happenings. The hindola (jhula) fitted with wheel
chair was being operated by appellant no. 3 i.e. father
of the appellant no. 1 & 2. It is further submitted that
since the appellant nos. 1 & 2 were also present for
fetching mela with their father, hence, they have also
been roped in this case without any negligence on
their part. Therefore, conviction and sentence of
appellant nos. 1 & 2 is not legally sustainable. It is
further submitted that appellant no. 3 is about 70
years old at present and his movement is restricted
due to illness and sickness. It is a case wherein
appellant no. 3 was running a hindola (jhula) in a
village fare and in course of operating jhulla, axle
wheel roller was broken down and the same fell down
upon the nearby standing nephew of the informant
namely, Rahul Kumar, aged about 08 years who died
and some other children were injured.
12. It is further submitted that the aforesaid happening
was absolutely unfortunate accident without any
gross negligence on the part of appellant no. 3. The
appellants have been awarded sentence for a
maximum imprisonment for two years, out of which
appellant no. 3 has undergone three weeks
imprisonment during trial. He has also compensated
to the victim. The appellants are ready to further
compensate the victim in terms of money as may be
imposed by this Court, instead of undergoing to
remaining sentence of imprisonment. Accordingly,
this appeal may be disposed of with modification /
alteration in sentence.
13. On the other hand to the above restricted point of
argument, learned Spl.P.P. has raised no serious
objections, but defended the judgment on merits.
14. It appears that during course of trial altogether ten
witnesses were examined in this case. The important
witness in this case is informant (P.W.-1), P.W.-4 Dr.
Binod Narayan and P.W.-8, who is the I.O. of this
case.
15. P.W.-1 Suresh Mahto is the informant and uncle of
the deceased namely, Rahul Kumar. He has stated
that the deceased and his cousin were purchasing
gram nearby the Jhula which broke down due to
which Rahul Kumar (deceased) sustained injury on
his temple who was brought to the hospital and died.
In para-3 of his cross-examination, he has stated
that the Jhula was fitted properly, but all of a sudden
broke down due to disorder of axle.
16. P.W.-4 Binod Narayan is the Doctor, who has
conducted the post mortem and prepared post-
mortem report of the dead body of the deceased. He
has found one hametoma of right side of skull.
17. P.W.-8 Krishna Singh is the Investigating Officer of
the case. He has stated that accident occurred in Mela
where Rahul Kumar sustained injury and was
brought to Hospital where he died. At para-4, he has
stated that jhula was not seized and at para-7, he has
stated that he cannot say under whose management
the mela was organized. He has further stated that he
is not an expert, as such, cannot say about jhula.
18. It appears from the trend of prosecution evidence that
no cogent material has been collected during
investigation showing that the alleged hindola (jhula)
was being operated in partnership or with cooperation
of appellant nos. 1 & 2, rather it appears that they
have been made accused because they happen to be
the sons of appellant no. 3 and were present in the
village fare at the time of accident. The accident has
also taken place in sudden manner, which appears to
be beyond control of the appellant no. 3.
19. Under such circumstances, the maximum
imprisonment awarded to the appellants requires to
be reduced by enhancing the monetary compensation
to the dependents of the victim.
20. Considering the overall aspect of the case, the
conviction and sentence of appellant nos. 1 & 2 does
not appear to be justified under law in absence of
cogent and reliable evidence. Hence, conviction and
sentence of appellant nos. 1 & 2 is hereby set aside.
Appellant nos. 1 & 2 are acquitted from the charges
levelled against them.
21. So far appellant no. 3 is concerned, his conviction is
upheld, but sentence of imprisonment is reduced to
the period already undergone by him.
22. The appellant no. 3 is directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as
victim compensation to the family members of the
deceased child. The learned trial court shall identify
the family members entitled for compensation and
disburse the amount of compensation to them. The
appellant no. 3 is directed to deposit the
compensation amount within a period of three
months from the date of this judgment before the
learned trial court.
23. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed with
aforesaid observation.
24. The appellant nos. 1 & 2 are on bail, as such, they are
discharged from liability of bail bond and sureties
shall also discharged on merits with modification in
sentence as stated above.
25. So far appellant no. 3 is concerned, the appeal on his
behalf is hereby dismissed.
26. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court
record be sent back to the court concerned for
information and needful.
[
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated : 19th November, 2024
Sunil /N.A.F.R.
