Point of Law: Conviction set aside - Prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the petitioner beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts, as they have not been able to produce any evidence that the petitioner was driving the vehicle at the time and place of occurrence.

JUDGMENT :

Through: Video Conferencing

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

2. Heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

3. The present revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 06.10.2007 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Cr. Appeal No. 184/2006, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.06.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in G.R. Case No. 1202/1998, T.R. No. 72/2006.

4. The learned trial court has convicted the petitioner for offence under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, he will have to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days for offence under Section under Section 279 of IPC and further imprisonment of one year with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, he will have to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days for offence under Section 304-A of IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Submissions on behalf of the petitioner

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code alleged to be driver of the offending vehicle, but neither there is any evidence on record nor there is any finding by the learned court below that it was the petitioner who was driving the offending vehicle. He further submits that a specific plea was raised before the learned appellate court that no witness has identified the petitioner as a driver of the offending vehicle at the time of alleged accident and there was no definite finding of the learned court below that the petitioner was driving the said truck at the time of accident in a negligent manner. He submits that the learned appellate court has recorded at para-8 of the impugned judgment that though P.W.-1 Arun Kumar says the number of said truck as BR 16B 9890, whereas the informant-P.W.-2 Bhupendra Singh Bhatiya says the number of said truck as BR 16B 9809. The learned appellate court held that it is simply a numerical error. The truck was left by the driver at the spot and the investigating officer-P.W.-3, who investigated the place of occurrence, says that the accident took place in front of Tata Pigment, where the deceased was lying dead and the said truck bearing Registration No. BR 16B 9809 was also standing and therefore it was very much clear that the truck bearing Registration No. BR 16B 9809 was involved in the said accident. It is submitted that P.W.-3, the investigating officer, has stated that after investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against the accused driver of the said truck, as the accident took place by the said truck.

6. The learned counsel submits that there is no material on record to show, as to how and in what manner, the petitioner is involved with the alleged offence and even the investigating officer in his deposition has not stated the manner, in which, the petitioner has been implicated in the case. The learned counsel submits that in absence of any materials on record to show that it was the petitioner who was driving the offending vehicle, conviction of the petitioner for the alleged offence is ex-facie perverse and is fit to be set-aside. Apart from this, he has also submitted that there is no finding by the learned trial court that the vehicle was being driven in rash and negligent manner. He submits that if the first point finds favour for the petitioner, the second point need not be gone into, as it is the case where there is no evidence that the petitioner was driving the said vehicle.

Submissions on behalf of the opposite party-State

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State, on th