JAGAT PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 9 -3 -1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, II, Jehanabad in Cr. Appeal No. 57 of 1993 whereby and whereunder the conviction and sentence imposed by the Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad in G.R. Case No. 946 of 1993 (Trial No. 319 of 1992) had been confirmed. The petitioner was tried for offences under Sections 279 and 304 -A of the I.P.C. and sentenced under the said Sections for simple imprisonment for three months amalgamately under two penal sections as mentioned above.

(2.) The occurrence took place on 28 -7 -1988 while the petitioner was driving his tractor No. BHB 2556 and because of rash and negligent driving dashed against Yogendra Prasad who; later on, died in the Hospital. An information was lodged by means of a fardbayan by P.W. 1 Kishore Sao who was posing himself to be an eye -witness of the occurrence. The other eye -witness to the occurrence i.e. P.W. 2 Jugal Kishore has been declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution case then he was confronted with the statements made before the Investigation Officer under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. There was a dying declaration of the deceased while he was being carried to the Hospital by the witness. On the basis of the dying declaration and the evidence of P.W. 1 together with the medical evidence as post -mortem report, conviction was arrived at by the trial Court and the same has also been confirmed in appeal.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner made an attempt to lead this Court for reappraising the evidence on the record. Such submission is not tenable unless it could be shown from the judgments challenged that there was misreading and wrong reading of the evidence on record resulting in miscarriage of justice but there is nothing in the judgments and the lower Court records that there was any non -reading or misreading of the evidence. The two facts finding Courts had arrived at the conclusion that the guilt of the accused has been established beyond all reasonable doubts. There is no impropriety in the impugned orders passed by the two Courts. Hence, there is no force in this revision petition.