SOHAN GOSAI @ SOHAN GOSWAMI @ GOSAI, SON OF LATE NAGESHWAR GOSWAMI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAKHARI, P.S. BAJPATTI, DISTRICT SITAMARHI Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal revision application has been filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order, dated 06.06.2014, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi, in Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2013, whereby, while dismissing the said criminal appeal, learned Sessions Judge has affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 20.08.2013, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pupri, at Sitamarhi, in Trial No. 203 of 2013, arising out of G. R. No. 98 of 2007.

(2.) The learned Trial Court, by the aforesaid judgment and order, dated 20.08.2013, has convicted the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months for the offence punishable under Sec. 279 of the Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 5,000.00 for the offence punishable under Sec. 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner, upon rejection of his appeal, by the learned Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi, which is impugned in the present revision application, was taken into custody on 31.07.2014 and, by virtue of an order, dated 10.09.2014 passed in this case, he appears to have been released on bail, on the condition that he would deposit the amount of fine before the learned Trial Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said fine has since been deposited.

(3.) Mr. V.R.P. Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has attempted to assail the judgments and orders of the Courts below on the ground that the findings recorded by both the Courts are perverse and based on erroneous appreciation of the evidence on record. He has submitted that the conviction is virtually based on the testimony of only one witness, i.e., PW 3 (Sanjay Mandal), who has wrongly claimed to be an eyewitness. He has also submitted that the post mortem report does not corroborate the evidence of PW 3 that the deceased instantly died, after having met with the accident because of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner.