Ghamandi Prasad vs State of Jharkhand

Heard Mr. D. K. Chakraverty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned A.P.P. for the State.

This application is directed against the judgment dated 22.02.2014 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge IV, East Singhbhum,

Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 285 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13.11.2009

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Jamshedpur in connection with G. R. Case No. 1862 of 2002 convicting the petitioner for the

offences under Sections 279, 337 and 427 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to various terms has been affirmed.

The prosecution story in brief is that the informant had gone to drop his sister on 16.09.2002 to her school on a Hero Honda motor-cycle and when

they had reached near Telco Main gate, a truck bearing registration no. OR-4B/9629 dashed against his motor-cycle and both of them fell down. It

has been alleged that his sister who was badly injured was taken to the hospital, where she was declared dead. It has also been alleged that the truck

after the accident had fled away. Based on the aforesaid allegations, G. R. No. 1862 of 2002 was instituted in which after investigation, charge-sheet

was submitted under Sections 279, 304A, 337 and 427 of the I.P.C., cognizance was taken and thereafter charge was framed under Sections 279,

304A, 337 and 427 of I.P.C. The learned trial court has acquitted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 304A of the I.P.C. while convicting him

for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 427 of I.P.C.

In course of trial, 8 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution.

P.W. 1 â€" Savinder Singh has stated that on the date of occurrence, he was going towards the Telco site on a bicycle when he saw a Hero Honda

motor-cycle being dashed by a truck from behind. He has stated that both driver and the pillion rider of the motor-cycle had fallen down. He has also

stated that the informant Trilok Singh was released after treatment whereas his sister was declared dead. This witness has proved his signature on the

inquest report marked as Exhibit 1. He has claimed to identify the petitioner if he was present. He has also stated that the truck was being driven

speedily. P.W. 2 â€" Trilok Singh Sandhu is the informant who has stated that on 16.09.2002 while he was taking his sister Jasmeet Kaur @ Prity to

the school near Siksha Niketan, a truck bearing registration no. OR-4B/9629 dashed against his motor-cycle. He has stated that they were taken to

the hospital by the local persons where doctors had declared his sister dead. This witness has given his Fard Beyan in the Telco hospital and he has

proved his signature on Fard Beyan which was marked as Exhibit 2. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that he had seen the driver of the

vehicle in the police station.

P.W. 3 â€" Dilip Singh Sandhu is the uncle of the informant who has stated that he had come to know about the accident and had thereafter reached

the Telco hospital where doctors had declared his daughter dead. This witness has stated that the petitioner being the driver of the vehicle was shown

to him at the police station. P.W. 4 â€" Chanchal Singh has stated that he had come to know about the occurrence and thereafter visited the hospital

also. He has further submitted that he had learnt that it was the petitioner who was driving the offending vehicle. The deceased Jasmeet Kaur is the

niece of this witness. P.W. 5 â€" Brajesh Kumar Srivastava has stated that at the time of the incident, he was going from Telco to Sakchi when he

saw a truck dash against a motor-cycle. This witness has identified the number of the truck and he has also claimed to identify the driver of the truck.

P.W. 6 â€" Amarjeet Kaur is the mother of the deceased who is a hearsay witness. P.W. 7 â€" Naresh Kumar is also an eye-witness to the

occurrence and has claimed to have seen the driver of the offending vehicle. In cross-examination, he has stated that the place of occurrence is a

busy road and several vehicles were running when the accident had taken place. P.W. 8 â€" Ranjeet Singh is a hearsay witness.

It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the identification of the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle has not been

proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Learned counsel submits that neither any Test Identification Parade has been held nor was the

petitioner present when the evidence of the witnesses were going on and therefore, it would not be safe to rely upon such witnesses who have

claimed to have seen the petitioner in the police station being the driver of the offending vehicle.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner.

It appears from the evidence of the witnesses that an accident had indeed taken place in which a truck bearing registration no. OR-4B/9629 had

dashed against a motor-cycle being driven by the informant which resulted in the death of Jasmeet Kaur @ Prity. Whether the petitioner was the

driver of the offending vehicle or not and as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt â€" are the

primary points which are to be considered. The FIR was instituted against the driver of the truck bearing number OR-4B/9629. P.W. 2 & P.W. 3

have both categorically stated that the petitioner was shown to them at the police station as the driver of the offending vehicle. P.W. 1 and P.W. 5

have claimed to identify the petitioner as the driver, but the same could not be substantiated as the petitioner on the date of examining P.W. 1 and

P.W. 5 was represented under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. P.W. 7 â€" Naresh Kumar is the eye-witness who have claimed to have seen the driver of the

offending vehicle. However, P.W. 7 has also stated that the place of occurrence is a busy thorough-fare and several vehicles were plying when the

accident had taken place.

In such scenario, it would not be safe to rely upon the evidence of P.W. 7 with respect to the identification of the petitioner being the driver of the

offending vehicle being not corroborated directly by any other witnesses. The version of P.W. 2 & P.W. 3 could have been considered with respect to

the petitioner being shown to them in the police station had the Investigating Officer been examined, but the non-examination of the Investigating

Officer therefore has caused definite prejudice to the defence as Investigating Officer if examined could have thrown light as to how the petitioner

has been implicated of being the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, so far as the identification of the petitioner is concerned, the evidence of

P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 & P.W. 5 can easily be discarded and so far as the evidence of P.W. 7 is concerned, it is reiterated that in absence of there

being any corroboration from any source, the evidence of P.W. 7 with respect to such identification automatically gets diluted and in such

circumstances, the benefit of doubt should accrue to the petitioner.

In view of the aforesaid reasoning, this application stands allowed and the judgments dated 22.02.2014 passed by the learned District & Additional

Sessions Judge IV, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 285 of 2009 and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated

13.11.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Jamshedpur in connection with G. R. Case No. 1862 of 2002 are hereby set aside.