SUDHIR THAKUR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 28.10.2002 passed by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court 3), Godda in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2000/26 of 2000, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.08.2000 passed by the learned 1st Class Judicial Magistrate, Godda in G. R. Case No. 224 of 1994 (T. R. No. 308 of 2000), whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Sections 279 , 304A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment for each offence and the sentences were to run currently, has been affirmed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that one Asgar Ali (uncle of deceased Samiruddin) filed a written application on 12.03.1994 stating therein that on 08.03.1994 at 08:00 A.M. the accused Digamber Thakur (the owner of tractor) came with his tractor to the house of Samiruddin (the deceased) to pick him up for loading sand as labourers were not sufficiently available. It is also added that the three labourers, namely, Seikh Bochu (P.W. - 4), Seikh Mazid and Seikh Khurshid (P.W. - 3) were already present riding on the tractor who always used to work as labour with his nephew. The deceased Samiruddin also went along with them riding upon tractor to load sand on account of shortage of labourers, but he did not return till 04:00 P.M. Then, the informant went to the house of aforesaid labourers of Mednichak for making enquiry where he learnt about the fact that his nephew Samiruddin has fallen down from the tractor near "Mednichak Haat" upon a sudden application of brake by the driver, Sudhir Thakur who was driving the tractor at the relevant time.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle which has been alleged to have been driven rashly and negligently by the petitioner has not been seized by the Police. Even the registration number of the alleged tractor has not been mentioned in the First Information Report. The statement of the Investigating Officer clearly transpires that he has not seen the driver nor he has seized the tractor and the entire conviction has been made on the mere surmises and conjecture. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even the dead body of the victim has not been recovered by the prosecution and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. As a matter of fact, there is no corroborative evidence either in the deposition or in the First Information Report. It has further been contended that no reason has been assigned by the prosecution that when the First Information Report was lodged by the father on 12.03.1994 itself, why it had reached before the court on 15.03.1994 when it was sent on 13.03.1994. The delay in lodging the First Information Report gives a presumption of concocted story basically the petitioner has been convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence so as to prosecute the petitioner.