Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 760
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.
Ghamandi Prasad Son of Binda Prasad - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Opposite Party
Criminal Revision No. 355 of 2014
Decided On : 04-09-2018
For the Petitioner:Mr. D. K. Chakraverty, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Ravi Prakash, A.P.P.
The principle of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the requirement for corroborated evidence in criminal cases were central to the court's decision.
Headnote:
Identification - Criminal Law - Sections 279, 337 and 427 of I.P.C. - The court discussed the evidence presented by witnesses and the lack of corroboration in identifying the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle. The non-examination of the Investigating Officer was noted to have caused prejudice to the defense, leading to the benefit of doubt accruing to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted for offenses under Sections 279, 337 and 427 of I.P.C. in connection with a road accident resulting in the death of the informant's sister. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was the driver of the offending vehicle, a truck bearing a specific registration number.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner was the driver of the offending vehicle. The lack of corroboration and the non-examination of the Investigating Officer led to the benefit of doubt accruing to the petitioner.
Issues: The primary issues considered by the court were whether the petitioner was the driver of the offending vehicle and whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The lack of corroboration in witness testimony and the non-examination of the Investigating Officer led to the court's decision to discard the evidence of identification, thereby benefiting the petitioner.
Final Decision: The judgments passed by the lower courts were set aside, and the application was allowed in favor of the petitioner.
1. Heard Mr. D. K. Chakraverty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 22.02.2014 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge IV, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 285 of 2009 whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13.11.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Jamshedpur in connection with G. R. Case No. 1862 of 2002 convicting the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 427 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to various terms has been affirmed.
3. The prosecution story in brief is that the informant had gone to drop his sister on 16.09.2002 to her school on a Hero Honda motor-cycle and when they had reached near Telco Main gate, a truck bearing registration no. OR-4B/9629 dashed against his motor-cycle and both of them fell down. It has been alleged that his sister who was badly injured was taken to the hospital, where she was declared dead. It has also been alleged that the truck after the accident had fled away. Based on the aforesaid allegations, G. R. No. 1862 of 2002 was instituted in which after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 279, 304A, 337 and 427 of the I.P.C., cognizance was taken and thereafter charge was framed under Sections 279, 304A, 337 and 427 of I.P.C. The learned trial court has acquitted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 304A of the I.P.C. while convicting him for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 427 of I.P.C.
4. In course of trial, 8 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution.
5. P.W. 1 – Savinder Singh has stated that on the date of occurrence, he was going towards the Telco site on a bicycle when he saw a Hero Honda motor-cycle being dashed by a truck from behind. He has stated that both driver and the pillion rider of the motor-cycle had fallen down. He has also stated that the informant Trilok Singh was released after treatment whereas his sister was declared dead. This witness has proved his signature on the inquest report marked as Exhibit 1. He has claimed to identify the petitioner if he was present. He has also stated that the truck was being driven speedily. P.W. 2 – Trilok Singh Sandhu is the informant who has stated that on 16.09.2002 while he was taking his sister Jasmeet Kaur @ Prity to the school near Siksha Niketan, a truck bearing registration no. OR-4B/9629 dashed against his motor-cycle. He has stated that they were taken to the hospital by the local persons where doctors had declared his sister dead. This witness has given his Fard Beyan in the Telco hospital and he has proved his signature on Fard Beyan which was marked as Exhibit 2. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that he had seen the driver of the vehicle in the police station. P.W. 3 – Dilip Singh Sandhu is the uncle of the informant who has stated that he had come to know about the accident and had thereafter reached the Telco hospital where doctors had declared his daughter dead. This witness has stated that the petitioner being the driver of the vehicle was shown to him at the police station. P.W. 4 – Chanchal Singh has stated that he had come to know about the occurrence and thereafter visited the hospital also. He has further submitted that he had learnt that it was the petitioner who was driving the offending vehicle. The deceased Jasmeet Kaur is the niece of this witness. P.W. 5 – Brajesh Kumar Srivastava has stated that at the time of the incident, he was going from Telco to Sakchi when he saw a truck dash against a motor-cycle. This witness has identified the number of the truck and he has also claimed to identify the driver of the truck. P.W. 6 – Amarjeet Kaur is the mother of the deceased who is a hearsay witness. P.W. 7 – Naresh Kumar is also an eye-witness to the occurrence and has claimed to have seen the driver of the offending vehicle. In c
