RAM PRASAD SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision is directed against the judgment Tendered by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Purnia, in Cr. Appeal No. 52 of 1994 confirming the judgment of the trial Court dated 4.5.1994 passed by SDJM, Araria, in G.R. Case No. 821/90, Trial No. 557 of 1994, The revisionist was convicted under Sections 279 and 304-A. IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for four months for the offence under Section 279. IPC and two years for the offence under Section 304A, IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) It has been submitted by the revisionist's lawyer that PW 1, who was the rickshaw puller, said that he was unable to say the number of the bus which dashed against his rickshaw. PW 5. Yogendra Rishi, also failed to say whether he was knocked down by a bus or a truck. PW 1 said that he learnt the bus number from PW 4. Binod Roy, who did not give the bus number in his eV4dente in Court. So, the identification of the revisionist is not fixed by the evidence of PW 1. PW 4 and PW 5. In this view of the matter, the revisionist did not deserve to be convicted. However, on perusal of the evidence of PW 2 it transpires that he was an eye-witness and he had said that Pawan Coach had dashed the rickshaw driven by PW 1 from behind hilling Dinesh Rishideo and injuring Yogendra Rishi. This witness also identified the accused in dock and the person who was driving the Pawan coach at the relevant date and time. The deceased and the injured mere carried to the hospital by this witness along with others. The deceased died on the way. PW3 was declared hostile. So, there Jas at least one witness who said that the revisionist was driving the Pawan coach which had knocked down the deceased Dinesh Rishideo. Although PW 1 failed to give the number of the bus he at least said that it was Pawan coach which dashed against his rickshaw and he also identified the accused in dock while deposing in Court. Ill his cross-examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C. the accused-revisionist did not offer any explanation as to why he was picked up by the police just on imagination to be implicated in the relevant accident case. On investigation he was the person charge-sheeted. So, the circumstances of the case indicated that on the relevant-date and time, he was the driver of the Pawan coach which dashed against the rickshaw of PW 1 killing Dinesh Rishideo and injuring PW 5 Yogendra Rishi, the informant. The doctor was also examined as PW 6, who said that the deceased died of an injury in an accident. PW 7 was the 10 of the case who also supported the fact of accident at the particular place and time. Both the lower Courts on the basis of evidence held the accused-revisionist guilty and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. The judgment of the two lower Courts do not suffer from any irregularity in arriving at the conclusion the revisionist had caused the alleged accident. I do not see any misapplication of any procedural law or any other law in the findings recorded by the two lower Courts. The scope of revision is limited and this Court cannot interfere unless the judgment of the Courts below is vitiated by any legal flaw. Hence, f do not think that there is any good ground for interfering with the judgment of the two Courts below.

(3.) So far as the sentence is concerned, it has been submitted that the revisionist, already suffered incarceration of 5-1/2 months. So, a lenient view may be taken.