PHILIP TOPNO @ PHILIP TOPPO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision against the judgment dated 7.5.2004 passed by Shri A.P, Sharma, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Cr. Appeal No. 5/1998 whereby and whereunder the conviction of the petitioner by order dated 4.2.1998 by the Court of Shri P.N. Rai, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Daltonganj (Palamau) under Section 304 -A, IPC Was affirmed in G.R Case No. 1413/1993 whereby the petitioner was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year, in addition to that 3 months Rigorous Imprisonment for his conviction under Section 279, IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that while the informant with his mother was returning from Tumbagarh Hospital after her treatment and reached near village Doero, a Mini Bus 407 bearing registration No. BR -15L -1164 dashed his mother inflicting injuries on her right leg as a result of which she fell down and she became senseless. She was brought to Tumbagarh Hospital for her treatment but she succumbed her injury. On the statement of the informant, Daltonganj Sadar P.S. Case No. 365/1993 was lodged on 9.10.1993 for the offence under Section 279/304 -A, IPC and after investigation the charge -sheet was submitted against the petitioner being the driver of the said MiniBus in the aforesaid penal Sections.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Courts below in succession failed to appreciate the fact that save and except PW 1 (informant) no other witness came forward to corroborate his statement on the point of identity of the driver of Mini Bus 407 bearing registration No. BR -15L -1164 in death case arising out of Motor Accident. In such a situation examination of the Motor Vehicle Inspector is necessary but in the present case M.V.I. was not examined so there was no expert opinion on the record about the involvement of the said Bus alleged to be driven by the petitioner causing accidental death of the victim. The IO has also not been examined which caused serious prejudiced to the petitioner and the finding of the Courts below are based upon the surmises and conjectures. The petitioner surrendered in the Court below on 29.12.2005 and since then he is in custody. Earlier also in course of trial he was in judicial custody for about one month.