JUDGMENT

CAV On Dated- 24.04.2024 Pronounced On 26.06.2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P.

appearing for the State.

2.

The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 19.09.2013 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Latehar in Criminal Appeal No. 02 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.12.2012 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in G.R. No. 404 of 2005 (T.R. No. 16 of 2012) arising out of Latehar P.S. Case No. 94 of 2005, whereby petitioner was convicted for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304(A) of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 279 I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 337 I.P.C. and S.I. for one year for the offence under Section 338 I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year for the offence under Section 304A I.P.C., has been dismissed.

3.

Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that on

04.11.2005, the informant along with his wife Sangita Devi and daughter (Priya) aged about two months were going to his native village Chiyanki from Ranchi by hiring Maruti Van bearing registration No. JH-01L-1901 and at about 3.45 PM, when they reached near village Hotwag Pataki Jungle on Daltonganj road, meanwhile, one deep colour Mahindra Pick-up van without registration number being driven very rashly and negligently by its driver dashed to the Maruti Van causing severe injuries to the inmates of said Maruti Van. The driver of the said Maruti Van Umesh Pandey was died in the accident. The driver of Mahindra Pick-up Van managed to flee away. In course of treatment, one injured died.

4.

Accordingly, after investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the accused Gopal Yadav (present petitioner) for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code.

5.

The accused-petitioner denied the substance of acquisitions explained to him and claimed for trial. In the course of trial, altogether 05 witnesses including Dr. Shiv Pujan Sharma (P.W.-5) and some injured person and victims and following documentary evidences were also adduced by the prosecution.

Exhibit- 1 : Signature of P.W.-2 Ajit Kumar on the fardbeyan.

Exhibit 2 : Injury report of Ajit Kumar (P.W. 2)

Exhibit 2/1 : Injury report of Smt. Sangita Devi, wife of Ajit Kumar.

Exhibit 2/2 : Injury report of Priya (daughter of Ajit Kumar).

Exhibit 2/3 : Injury report of deceased (Umesh Pandey)

driver of the Maruti Van.

6.

After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 was recorded. The case of defence is plea of innocence and denial of occurrence. No oral and documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence.

7.

The learned Trail Court, after appraisal of overall evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the present petitioner was driving the Mahindra Pick-up van very rashly and negligently at a very high speed and dashed the Maruti Van and all the passengers of the van have sustained severe injuries, two of them, namely, Umesh Pandey, the driver of the Maruti Van and Priya Kumari, two months female child of the informant, died in the course of treatment, which clearly suggests that the driver of the offending vehicle (present petitioner) was not caring at all the public safety in his mind while driving the vehicle. There is not only two deaths, but also two in-mates, namely, Ajit Kumar and his wife Sangita Devi had also sustained grievous injuries. Hence, petitioner does not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence or the benefit of provision of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The petitioner was held guilty for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 279 I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo S