The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; conviction upheld despite some witnesses not being examined due to sufficient existing evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The instant Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment dated 25.06.2015 passed by Sri Mukesh Kumar Srivastava learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I at Gumla in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2012 whereby the Criminal Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order and judgment dated 15.03.2012 passed by, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Gumla in connection with Raidih P.S. Case No. 78 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 998 of 2008 by which the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence under Section 279 of INDIAN PENAL CODE and simple imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 304A of INDIAN PENAL CODE , was affirmed and appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.

3. In nutshell, the case of prosecution is based upon the written report filed by Ganpat Kumar (informant) before the Officer-in-charge of Raidih police station on 26.11.2008 at 9:00 A.M. stating therein that on 26.11.2008 at 5:49 A.M. the informant and the deceased Teresa Ekka aged about 57 years were standing near Manjhatoli bus stand and waiting for a bus. It is further allegedly stated that a truck bearing registration no. JH02J-6349 hit the Teresa Ekka and tried to flee away but with the help of other vehicle the said truck was intercepted and caught near the police station. The injured Teresa Ekka was sent to Sadar Hospital for treatment.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid written report an F.I.R. No. 78 of 2008 dated 26.11.2008 was registered against driver of the said truck at Raidih police station under Section 279 , 337 and 338 of INDIAN PENAL CODE .

5. It transpires from record that injured Teresa Ekka had been referred to R.I.M.S., Ranchi by Sadar Hospital, Gumla for better treatment and she succumbed to injury at R.I.M.S., Ranchi on 04.12.2008 at 10:30 P.M.

6. After completing the investigation the I.O. has submitted charge sheet under Sections 279 and 304A of INDIAN PENAL CODE against the accused. On the basis of the same, the learned C.J.M., Gumla on 02.02.2009 after taking cognizance of the offence transferred the case to the S.D.J.M., Gumla for trial and disposal. The substance of accusation was explained to the accused in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The statement of accused got recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure wherein, he has simply denied the allegations levelled against him.

7. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as three witnesses among nine charge sheeted witnesses. P.W.-1 Ranjit Toppo (hearsay witness), P.W.-2 Anjalus Toppo (eye witness who has proved the death inquest report as Exhibit-1 and his fardbeyan as Exhibit -2) and P.W.-3 Ganpat Kumar (informant) himself who has proved the written report as Exhibit- 3.

8. The defence has not produced any witness nor any documentary evidence has been produced in his support.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that out of nine charge-sheeted witnesses only three interested witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and I.O. and doctor who has conducted the post mortem of the deceased have not been examined, as such, the cause of death has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Further it has been submitted that post mortem report has not been exhibited in t