CHUMBRU GAGRAI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision application is directed against the judgment dated 04.12.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West-Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2011 whereby the learned Appellate Court has confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.2011 arising out of G.R. Case No. 644 of 2007 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar at Chaibasa whereby the petitioner has been found guilty for the offence under Section 279 and 304 (A) IPC and he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 months under Section 279 IPC and further R.I. for one year under Section 304 (A) IPC and both the sentence were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that on 09.12.2007, the informant's nephew namely, Jagannath Gope was going to village- Purnia, on a motorcycle bearing registration no. OR-7168. At the same time, a tractor bearing registration no. JH-06B 3730 loaded with sand was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver hit the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased came under the rear-wheel of the tractor and died on the spot. On 'Hulla' the villagers of Kasira village and Manki, came and caught hold the driver and the vehicle. Thereafter, the police was informed and fardbeyan of the informant namely, Ram Chandra Gope was recorded at 05.30 p.m. at village- Kasira on 09.12.2007. On the basis of fardbeyan, G.R. Case No. 644 of 2007 being Jagannathpur P.S. Case No. 55 of 2007 was registered on 09.12.2007. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted by the I.O. and cognizance of offence was taken. The learned Trial Court after appreciating the prosecution evidence, oral and documentary, has convicted the petitioner for offence u/s 279 and 304 (A) and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 03 months for the offence u/s 279 IPC and R.I. for one year u/s 304 (A) IPC.

(3.) The petitioner challenged the Trial Court order before the learned Appellate Court who after appreciating the argument and document available on record affirmed judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove that the driver was negligent and rash in his driving. He further submitted that though the prosecution has projected P.W.5 as witnesses to the place of occurrence is not sufficient to prove the conviction beyond all reasonable doubts. Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, the learned A.P.P. has argued that the date of occurrence, time of occurrence and manner of occurrence have well-being proved by the prosecution and there is no infirmity in the order of learned Trial Court as well as the order of learned Appellate Court.