Jharkhand High Court
Govind Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ... on 3 September, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1540 of 2016
Govind Mandal ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arjun N. Deo, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, APP
---
05/03.09.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Arjun N. Deo submits
that the alleged date of incident is 09.03.2006 at around 9.30 p.m. One
person namely P.W. 4 is the injured witness who suffered grievous
hurt and the informant of the case - P.W. 5 is the nephew of the
deceased. He has submitted that the accident had taken place near a
hospital in Giridih.
3. Altogether seven witnesses were examined before the learned
Court.
4. While assailing the impugned judgments, the learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that the offence under section 304-A of
Indian Penal Code has not at all been established, inasmuch as, neither
the doctor has been examined nor the post-mortem report has been
exhibited.
5. Upon a query of this Court, the learned counsel submits that the
deceased victim was brought dead to the hospital. He has further
submitted that the occurrence has also not been proved properly,
inasmuch as, the bicycle on which the deceased and the injured
witness were travelling has not been seized and the Maruti van was
also not seized. He submits that the registration number of the Maruti
van has not been mentioned in the First Information Report nor the
petitioner has been named in the First Information Report.
Subsequently, the case proceeded in connection with the Maruti van
bearing no. JH-11C-2270.
6. However, the records of the case reveal that the vehicle was
released in favour of the owner. With regards to the release of the so
called offending vehicle learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
someone had given the detail of the vehicle, on the basis of which the
vehicle was seized by the police and was released. There is no seizure
in connection with the incident of the present case. He has submitted
that investigating officer of the case has been examined as P.W. -6.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the
evidence of P.W. 5 - informant of the case, has submitted that the
evidence reveals that the First Information Report was lodged on
hearsay basis as he is not the eye-witness to the occurrence. He did not
disclose the name of the driver and the number of the Maruti Car in
his First Information Report and therefore, the offence under section
304-A of Indian Penal Code was not made out.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that both the
judgments are also not sustainable in view of the fact that the learned
Courts have not considered the provisions of section 360 of Code of
Criminal Procedure nor section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act
has been considered. He submits that no proper hearing has been
given while awarding the sentence to the petitioner and maximum
sentence of simple imprisonment for two years has been awarded for
alleged offence under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code.
9. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, while opposing
the prayer of the petitioner, has submitted that there are concurrent
findings recorded by both the learned Courts and there is no scope for
reappreciation of evidence in revisional jurisdiction. He has further
submitted that the injured witness has been examined as PW -4 who
has fully supported the prosecution case. He has also given the
manner, date and time of the occurrence and has also disclosed the
vehicle number in his evidence. The injured witness is not the
informant of the case. It is true that the informant has not given the
vehicle number in his First Information Report.
10. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the non -
examination of the doctor who has conducted the post-mortem and the
fact that the post-mortem report has not been exhibited, is not fatal to
the prosecution case, inasmuch as, the case is supported by eye-
witness particularly the injured witness.
11. Arguments concluded.
12. As the Court's time is over, post this case for dictation of
judgment tomorrow i.e. on 04th September 2024.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj
