Point of Law: Motor Accident - Rash and Negligence driving - Death - Conviction affirmed - Petitioner witnesses are independent eye witnesses to occurrence who are having their shops near place of occurrence and they have fully supported prosecution case.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Arup Dey, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.

3. The present criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 19.04.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 13.01.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. Case No.4949 of 2005/T.R. No.1082 of 2012 [arising out of Baghmara (Barora) P.S. Case No. 298/2005 dated 26.12.2005] has been affirmed and the criminal appeal has been dismissed.

4. The learned trial court had convicted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 304(A) and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, Simple Imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Simple Imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code with the direction that all the sentences would run concurrently.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while advancing his arguments submitted that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, inasmuch as, one of the witnesses i.e. P.W.-2, who has claimed to be the eye witness of the occurrence, has stated that he caught hold of the petitioner, but in fact, the petitioner had surrendered before the learned court below and was not apprehended on the spot. He further submitted that Prosecution Witness Nos. 1, 4 and 6 were declared hostile and the other witnesses who have supported the prosecution case and have claimed to be the eye witnesses were actually not the eye witnesses to the occurrence. The learned counsel also submitted that the manner of the occurrence has not been described and the witnesses have only stated that it was the fault of the truck driver due to which the accident had taken place. He submitted that it is also not mentioned that the truck was moving at a very high speed. Learned counsel further submitted that it is an admitted fact on record that the truck was moving on the proper side of the road. He submitted that the learned courts below have not appreciated the aforesaid aspects of the matter and accordingly, the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below are perverse which call for interference in revisional jurisdiction.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State

6. Learned A.P.P. for the Opposite Party opposed the prayer by stating that there are consistent findings recorded by the learned courts below which do not call for any interference by this Court and there are four eye witnesses to the occurrence including P.Ws. 3, 5, 7 and 8 as recorded in Para-11 of the trial court’s judgment. He further submitted that the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner is fit to be sustained.

Findings of this Court

7. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and going through the impugned judgments and the lower court records of the case, this Court finds that the prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of the Informant namely, Md. Mahbub Ansari alleging, inter-alia, that on 26.12.2005 at about 10.00 A.M., his father namely, Pan Babu Ansari alongwith his brother namely, Md. Maksood Ansari had gone to Katras on Motorcycle No. JH-10C-7629 and at about 01.00 P.M., the Informant received information that his father and brother met with an accident. Thereafter, the Informant alongwith his cousin uncle namely, Md. Kamsuddin reached on the road near Village- Jhagrahi and found the dead bodies of his father and brother lying on the left side of the road and the motorcycle of his father was lying under the front wheel of the offending vehicle i.e. Truck No. BHR-6095. The vill