TILESHWAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 12.8.2002 by which Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 1999 preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla affirming his conviction under Sections 279/304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and order awarding adequate sentence of imprisonment and fine by the S.D.J.M., Gumla in G.R. No. 239 of 1996, corresponding to T.R. No. 561 of 1999. By the said order, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for his conviction under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation for his conviction under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Prosecution story in short was that at about 7:15 p.m. on 6.4.1996, while the informant Savitri Devi was returning home and her son Gopal Thakur (since deceased) after closing his saloon was accompanying her and when they reached near the hotel of one Tiru at village Konvir, it was alleged that a bullet motorcycle came from their behind in high speed and knocked down her son Gopal Thakur while he was crossing the road. Her son Gopal Thakur as well as the rider of the motorcycle fell down on the earth with the impact of such accident and both became unconscious, though the pillion rider was there in sense, who disclosed the name of the petitioner Tileshwar Sahu being the driver of the motorcycle. Witnesses from nearby assembled there on the alarm raised by the informant. Registration number of the bullet motorcycle was given as BR-41-5101. Her son Gopal Thakur as well as the driver of the motorcycle (petitioner) Tileshwar Sahu were brought to the Referal Hospital, Basia where the statement of the informant was recorded but her son Gopal Thakur succumbed his injuries during course of his treatment after a few days. A case was instituted initially under Sections 279/333 of the Indian Penal Code, later on Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code was added. Charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 279/337/338/304(A) of the Indian Penal Code after investigation and accordingly charge was framed.

(3.) Learned Counsel Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi assailed the impugned judgment recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 1999 as also the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the S.D.J.M., Gumla in G.R. No. 239 of 1996 on the ground that the courts failed to appreciate that the petitioner was highly prejudiced for non- examination of the Investigating Officer as he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine him about his objective finding when he visited the place of occurrence as the accident itself revealed the sequence based upon the principle of res ipsa loquitur as to which party was at fault. None of the courts above could take into consideration that the prosecution failed to prove that Gopal Thakur died in accident caused by the motorcycle which was driven non other than by the petitioner as neither the injury report when he was first treated at the Basia Referral Hospital nor the post-mortem report of the deceased could be proved so as to establish the cause of his death. Even the inquest report could not be brought on the record and the Doctor who had examined his injuries first point in time or the another Doctor who had held the autopsy could be produced before the trial Magistrate. The prosecution even failed to prove that it was the petitioner who was driving the motorcycle rashly and negligently at the relevant time when Gopal Thakur sustained injuries in the accident. Yet, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced without legal evidence on the record and without exercise of judicial mind by the S.D.J.M. The learned Sessions Judge also ignored such legal aspects and dismissed the appeal.