BABURAM MAJHI Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the present revision calls in question the correctness of the judgment dtd. 9/2/2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore in Criminal Appeal No.84 of 2006, whereby, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned J.M.F.C., Kotpad in G.R. No. 120 of 1999 was confirmed. As per the said judgment, the trial Court held the petitioner guilty of the offence under Ss. 279/337/304-A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00, in default, to undergo further R.I. for one month on each of the counts under Sec. 279/337 of IPC and to further undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000.00, in default, to undergo R.I. for two months for the offence under Sec. 304-A of IPC.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29/11/1999 at about 7.30 a.m. the petitioner was driving a Commander Jeep carrying 15 passengers, which capsized on the road leading from Potroguda to Miriguda near a pond known as Kenduguda. As a result, one Kamalu Samarath died and other occupants sustained bodily injuries. The matter being reported to police, Kotpad P.S. Case No.120/1999 was registered followed by investigation. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner under Ss. 279/337/338/304-A of IPC.

(3.) The petitioner faced trial in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Kotpad, during which 18 witnesses were examined along with other documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. After going through the evidence on record, learned Court below held that there was no rashness on the part of the accused driver but he was negligent because despite the fact that the road condition was bad and there were rain-cuts in the road, the accused should have been more careful in driving the vehicle carrying 10-12 passengers. Learned Court below further applied the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur to hold that the defence could not dislodge the prosecution allegation. It was however held that the offence under Sec. 338 was not proved, but the offence under Ss. 279/337/304-A are clearly proved. As such, the petitioner was convicted for the aforementioned offences and sentenced as aforesaid.