Jharkhand High Court
Prakash Singh Son Of Sri Birendra Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ... on 15 September, 2021
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 838 of 2012
Prakash Singh son of Sri Birendra Singh, resident of Sector-
II/D, Qr. No. 1-290 P.O. + P.S. B.S. City, District - Bokaro
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
05/15.09.2021 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State.
3. This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgement/order dated 21.08.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge- II, Bokaro whereby the learned appellate court has been pleased to dismiss the criminal appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.03.2011 passed in G.R. Case No. 596/2006 corresponding to T.R. No. 1888/2011 by the learned S.D.J.M. Bokaro whereby and whereunder he has been pleased to convict the petitioner under Sections 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently by the learned court below.
Arguments on behalf of the petitioner
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned judgement, has submitted that the petitioner has 2 been convicted for offence under Sections 279/338 of Indian Penal Code and the case was instituted after considerable delay. It was registered on 07.06.2006 and the incident had taken place on 26.05.2006. He has also submitted that the father of the informant who has been examined as P.W. 2 was accompanying the victim of the case and he had not given the vehicle number. He has also submitted that two of the prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W. 1 and P.W. 5 were declared hostile and the conviction of the petitioner has been sustained on account of evidence of P.W. 2 - the father of the informant, P.W. 3 - the informant victim himself and P.W. 4. He has submitted that considering the delay in lodging of the First Information Report, the petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt. The learned counsel submits that these aspects of the matter have not been properly considered by the learned courts below and accordingly, the impugned judgements cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
5. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the incident is of 26.05.2006 and the petitioner has remained in custody for some time during the pendency of the present revision petition, in as much as, he had surrendered on 19.09.2012 before the learned court below and thereafter, the present case was filed on 04.10.2012 and he was directed to be released on bail vide order dated 10.10.2012 and furnished his bail bond on 17.10.2012. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has remained in custody for a period of about one month. He has also submitted that no minimum sentence as such has been prescribed under Sections 279 and 338 of Indian Penal Code and considering the fact that the petitioner has faced the rigorous of the criminal case for a long time, some sympathetic view may be taken. He submits that on the date of conviction on 29.03.2011, the petitioner was 24 years of age and 3 it appears that at a tender age, the offence was committed by the petitioner.
Arguments on behalf of the opposite party- State
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below and the prosecution case was supported by an independent eye-witness i.e. P.W. 4 who had given the vehicle number, but he did not know the name of the driver, but identified the petitioner. She submits that even the investigating officer of the case has been examined as P.W. 6 who has fully supported the prosecution case. She has submitted that the doctor P.W. 7 has been examined and he has stated that he had examined the victim - informant on 26.05.2006 and found fracture right fibula shaft and that, the victim was brought to the hospital for treatment by his father. She submitted that the injury suffered was grievous injury.
7. The learned counsel for the State has also submitted that as the informant himself was the victim, therefore, delay in filing the case is well-explained and there is no inordinate delay considering the facts and circumstances of this case. The learned counsel submits that the punishment imposed by the learned court below appears to be justified and no interference is called for in the sentence.
Findings of this Court
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that as per the prosecution case, on 26.05.2006 at 07.15 a.m., the informant had taken his father for morning walk and when he reached near high school, one person driving rashly and negligently hit him, as a result of which, he fainted and local people and his family members took him to the hospital where the doctor told him that his leg was fractured. He remained hospitalized for a period of five days. The First 4 Information Report was instituted on the basis of his fardbeyan on 07.06.2006 wherein the informant had given the number of the offending vehicle as JH09E-3296 which was a motorcycle. The case was instituted as B.S. city P.S. Case No. 140 of 2006 dated 07.06.2006 against the driver of the motorcycle. Upon investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 279/338 of Indian Penal Code and cognizance was taken accordingly against the petitioner. When the substance of accusation was explained to the petitioner, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. The prosecution examined altogether seven witnesses including the informant, his father, doctor and the investigating officer of the case. Out of seven witnesses, two witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 1 and 5 turned hostile. P.W. 2- the father of the informant was examined who has fully supported the prosecution case with regard to time, place and manner of occurrence, but so far as the vehicle number is concerned, he did not remember, however, he recognized the petitioner who was present in the court as the person who was driving the motorcycle at the time of accident.
10. P.W. 3 is the informant of the case. He has also fully supported the prosecution case and he has disclosed the vehicle number and also identified the person who was driving the said vehicle who was present in the court i.e. the petitioner. He has also stated that he came to know about the name of the petitioner later on. P.W. 4 is an independent witness who has also fully supported the prosecution case and he is an eye- witness to the occurrence. He has also stated that he could only recollect the part of the vehicle number as 3296 and he did not know the name of the driver, but he identified the petitioner. This witness has also stated that the petitioner was driving the motorcycle at very high speed.
511. P.W. 6 is the investigating officer of the case. He has also supported the prosecution case. P.W. 7 is the doctor who has stated that he had examined the victim informant on 26.05.2006 and found fracture injuries. This witness stated that the informant was brought to the hospital by his father and the injury was due to road traffic accident as such kind of injury can take place in case of road traffic accident.
12. This court finds that the prosecution witnesses were duly cross-examined from the side of the defence and there is no material contradiction in their evidences, as is reflecting from the impugned judgement.
13. So far as delay in filing the case is concerned, it appears that the case was filed after 12 days of the accident and the victim himself has stated that he remained in hospital for five days and it is the victim who is the informant of the present case. This Court finds that the delay in filing the case is quite well-explained.
14. The learned courts below have returned concurrent findings by holding that P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 have witnessed the incident and they have identified the accused in the court and they have supported the case with regard to time, place and manner of occurrence. It has also come in evidence of the witnesses particularly P.W. 4, who has stated that one person was holding the hand of his father while doing morning walk whereupon, the Hero Honda motorcycle came from behind and hit both the persons. As a result of which, both the morning walkers fell down, who suffered severe injury.
15. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and after going through the material on record, this Court finds that basic ingredients for offence under Sections 279/338 of Indian Penal Code have been duly satisfied in the present case. There being no perversity, illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgement of conviction of the petitioner, the conviction of the 6 petitioner for offence under Sections 279/338 of Indian Penal Code is upheld.
16. So far as the sentence is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the sentence may be modified and he is ready to give victim compensation/fine as may be directed by this Court. He has also submitted that the present case is the first offence of the petitioner.
17. Considering the fact that the incident is of 26.05.2006 and more than 15 years have elapsed and the petitioner has remained in custody from 19.09.2012 for about one month as he had furnished his bail bond before the learned court below on 17.10.2012, the petitioner has faced the rigorous of the criminal case for a long time, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be served if the sentence of the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone in judicial custody by the petitioner with fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code and further, victim compensation amounting to Rs. 20,000/-. The entire amount of victim compensation and the fine, should be deposited by the petitioner before the learned court below within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order to the learned court below. The amount of victim compensation is directed to be remitted to the informant of the case upon due identification.
18. In case the aforesaid fine amount as well as victim compensation amount is not deposited within the stipulated time-frame, the petitioner would serve the sentence as awarded by the learned court below.
19. On deposit of the aforesaid amount of fine as well as victim compensation within the aforesaid time-frame, the bailors will be discharged of their liability under the bail bond.
720. This criminal revision petition is disposed of with aforesaid modification of sentence.
21. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are closed.
22. Let the Lower Court Records be immediately sent back to the court concerned.
23. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through 'FAX/email'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Pankaj