Advocates:
['VIKASH KISHORE PRASAD', '', 'Mr PRATIK SEN AMICUS', 'ASHOK KUMAR NO']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Revision No. 722 of 2003

Budhwa Oraon, son of Jaru Oraon, resident of village – Chetar,

P.O. & P.S. : Gumla, District – Gumla

…

…

Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

…

… Opposite Party

---

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Pratik Sen, Amicus Curiae

For the Opp. Party : Mr. Ashok Kumar, A.P.P

---

06/13.12.2021

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

judgement 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 1^st Class, Gumla had convicted the

petitioner vide judgement 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

2

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 judgements 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 Hon9ble 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 judgement. 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 c