The main legal point established is the application of the principles of rash and negligent driving under the Indian Penal Code, supported by consistent evidence and interpretation of relevant legal provisions.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Pratik Sen, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the opposite party – State.

3. The present criminal revision application is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 26.03.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in Criminal Appeal No.69 of 2000, whereby, the appeal has been dismissed with certain modifications. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gumla had convicted the petitioner vide judgment and order dated 26.09.2000 passed in G.R. Case No.176 of 1999 / T.R. No.477 of 2000 arising out of Gumla P.S. case No.59 of 1999 for offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code; rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 337 of Indian Penal Code; rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 304 A of Indian Penal Code and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The learned appellate court upheld the conviction of the petitioner for offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304 A IPC. The learned appellate court was of the view that as the injury report of the informant was not proved, it could not be said that the informant suffered grievous injury due to accident and therefore, acquitted the petitioner for offence under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code. The learned appellate court also upheld the sentence under Sections 279, 337 and 304 A of IPC.

4. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the impugned judgments are perverse and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. He submits that no inquest report, injury report, post-mortem report were exhibited before the learned court below and even the offending vehicle, the truck, has not been seized. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that considering these aspects of the matter, prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt and these aspects of the matter have not been considered by the learned courts below while convicting the petitioner. He has relied upon a judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2012 SC 2986 and has in particular referred to para 12 and 13 of the said judgment. He submits that the petitioner be extended the benefit of doubt and the impugned judgments be set aside.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party – State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below against the petitioner after appreciating the materials on record. He has submitted that the conviction is based on the evidence of the eye witnesses and he has particularly referred to evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 5, who have fully supported the prosecution case and have supported the case on the point of the manner, place and time of occurrence and their evidences are corroborative to each other. He has also submitted that even the vehicle number and truck details have come on record, so, non-seizure of the vehicle and non-exhibiting the inquest report or injury report etc. are not fatal to the prosecution case. Learned counsel submits that it is not in dispute that one of the victims had expired and the other victim, who was the informant of the case, has fully supported the prosecution case. He also submits that the learned appellate court had given the benefit of doubt in connection with the offence under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code to the petitioner as the injury report of the informant was not exhibited. Learned counsel has referred to para 18 of the judgment relied upon by the petitioner and submits that what is to be examined is whether the nature of accident can be gath