The main legal point established in the judgment is that for an offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code to be proved, the prosecution must establish that the accused's rash or negligent act was the proximate, immediate, or efficient cause of the victim's death without the intervention of another person's negligence.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

3. This criminal revision application has been filed challenging the legality, correctness and propriety of the order dated 24.2.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No.05 of 2011, corresponding to Koderma (T) P.S. Case No.420 of 2002, further corresponding to G.R. No.696 of 2002 (T.R. No.1125 of 2011), whereby and where under the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge, Sessions Court No. – I, Koderma has been pleased to uphold the decision of the learned trial court for which the appeal was preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.03.2011 passed by learned S.D.J.M, Koderma.

4. The petitioner has been convicted under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code for six months imprisonment each and it has been directed that all the sentences would run concurrently.

Arguments of the Petitioner

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments on the legality and validity of the conviction of the petitioner under Section 304 (A) of Indian Penal Code and so far as other sections i.e., 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code are concerned, he has confined his argument on the point of sentence.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that upon perusal of the impugned judgements, it is apparent that only two witnesses have been examined in the present case out of which one has claimed to be an eye witness. As per the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, the victim had suffered fracture in his leg due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner who subsequently expired in the clinic. He submits that it has also come in evidence that the fard bayan of the deceased was recorded by the investigating officer in the clinic.

7. He submits that neither the injury report nor the post mortem report have been exhibited and neither the Investigating Officer of the case nor the doctor who had treated the victim have been examined during trial and accordingly the immediate cause of death has not been proved before the learned court below as the victim had only suffered fracture on his leg in the accident. He has submitted that it has not been proved that the accident was the immediate, direct and proximate cause of death of the victim and accordingly the conviction of the petitioner under Section 304 (A) of Indian Penal Code suffers from perversity which calls for interference in revisional jurisdiction to serve the ends of justice. He submits that considering this aspect of the matter, the petitioner may be acquitted for alleged offence under section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code.

8. So far as sentence under sections 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code are concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the incident is of the year 2002; The petitioner was convicted by the learned trial court on 16th March, 2011 and at that point of time the petitioner was 45 years of age and accordingly the present age of the petitioner is about 55 years. The learned counsel has also submitted that present offence of the petitioner was the first offence which has come during the argument recorded by the learned trial court at the time of sentencing of the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that some sympathetic view may be taken considering the aforesaid facts including the fact that the petitioner has faced the rigors of the criminal case for a long time. It is submitted that after the judgement passed by the learned lower appellate court, the petitioner had surrendered before the learned court below on 01.07.2014 and was directed to be released on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 13.10.2014 and thereafter the learned counsel is not aware as to when the petitioner had furnished his bail bond before the learned court below. He submits that accordingly the custody of the petiti