RAJESHWAR MISTRY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.06.2015, passed by the learned District & Addl. Sessions Judge -IV, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 2009, whereby and whereunder he dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 18.05.2009, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in G.R. No. 1607 of 2005, corresponding to T.R. No. 190 of 2009, whereby the petitioner has been convicted under Ss. 279, 337 and 304 -A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 1/2 years and also pay fine of Rs. 3,000/ -. It is submitted by Sri Dilip Kumar Chakraverty, learned counsel for the petitioner that in the instant case, the judgments of both the courts below are perverse as the same are not passed on any legal evidence. It is submitted that both the courts below had convicted the appellant/petitioner on the basis of evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5, but both the witnesses are not the eye -witnesses of the occurrence, as they have stated before the police that they went to the place of occurrence after receiving information about the accident from some unknown persons. It is submitted that attention of the aforesaid witnesses had been drawn to their previous statements made before the police, but due to non -examination of Investigating Officer, the said contradictions have not been proved. Thus, due to non -examination of the Investigating Officer, a great prejudice caused to the petitioner. Therefore, in the instant case, non -examination of the Investigating Officer is fatal for the prosecution case.

(2.) On the other hand, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned Additional P.P. submits that since the aforesaid two witnesses have categorically stated that the accident took place in their presence and the petitioner was apprehended by the police from near the spot of the accident, the learned courts below have rightly convicted the petitioners for the offence. Accordingly, learned Additional P.P. submits that no interference is required by this Court.

(3.) Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case. It is an admitted position that the deceased persons namely, Guru Charan Singh and Suraj Prasad died in an accident, which took place on 31.07.2005 at National Highway (N.H. -33). It is also an admitted position that an F.I.R. has been lodged against unknown persons. However, during the investigation, petitioner was apprehended and after completion of the said investigation, he was charge -sheeted.