Sole witness identification can support a conviction under IPC sections if credible, despite time lapse; prior sentence mitigated considering duration of trial and defendant's age.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.

Heard Ms. Ashwini Priya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Praful Jojo, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The instant Criminal Revision is against the judgment dated 19.06.2015 passed by Sri Sandeep Sharma learned Additional Sessions Judge Court IV at Jameshdpur in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2011 whereby the Criminal Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order and judgment dated 13.01.2011 passed by Sri Anil Kumar Pandey, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Jamshedpur in Bistupur P.S. Case No. 101 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 721 of 2006 by which the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and fine of Rs. 500/- for committing an offence under Section 279 , 337, of I.P.C. was affirmed and appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed

3. In nutshell, the case of prosecution is based upon the fardbeyan of the informant which has been recorded on 21.03.2006 wherein, informant has allegedly stated that at about 7.30 A.M., the informant was returning home after morning walk from Jubli Park and when he reached near get No. 2 of children park, the driver of Hero Honda Motorcycle driving rashly and negligently from opposite side dashed him. Due to this, he fell down and received injury on knee joint, waist and was not in position to stand up. The nearby people brought him to the T.M.H. Hospital for treatment. The number of Motorcycle is JH05F6436.

4. On the basis of fardbeyan of informant, Bistupur P.S. Case No. 101 of 2006 dated 23.03.2006 was registered under Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C. After investigation, charge sheet dated 30.06.2006 submitted against the accused (petitioner herein) under Section 279 / 337 of I.P.C. 5. In this case, the learned C.J.M. after taking cognizance of the offence transferred the case to the Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur for trial and disposal. The substance of accusation was explained to him on 16.04.2007 in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In this case, prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses including the informant. These witnesses are P.W.-1 Anjani Kumar Dubey is (informant), P.W.-2 Sunil Pati Tripathy, P.W.-3 Lala Srivastava, P.W.-4 Srikant Dubey and P.W.-5 Om Prasad Gupta.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/ revisionist submitted that identification of accused/petitioner in the court is itself doubtful as informant has stated in his testimony that after seeing the accused at the time of accident, he is seeing accused in the court. Learned counsel further submitted that if a person sees other person for fraction of second then it is difficult for him to identify the said person after elapse of more than a year. It has also been pointed out that except informant no one is the eye witness.

8. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. submitted that prosecution story fully supported by all the five prosecution witnesses. There is consistency in the evidence of witnesses and the informant has clearly stated in his evidence, the number of vehicles and he has also identified the accused in the Court during the trial.

9. Heard both the learned counsels and perused the materials available on record.

10. For determination of this revision petition, statements of witnesses who were examined by the prosecution are being reproduced herein below:

11. P.W.-1 is the informant who stated that on 21.03.2006 at about 7.30 A.M. while he was returning afte