KANCHAN CHAKRABORTY, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 18 -12 -2009 passed in Sessions Trial No. 378 of 2009 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Howrah convicting the appellant, Rudal Yadav for committing offences under Sections 304A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year with a direction that the sentence for both the offences would run concurrently. The appellant was also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/ - to the widow of the victim within 90 days, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.
(2.) ON 10.07.2008, at about 10.15 hours, Madhu Sudan Patra was going towards Kona through Banaras road by riding on a bye cycle. When he reached near Eksora Samaj Sevak Samity, a lorry bearing no. WB ­ 23/7193 knocked him down from behind without giving any horn. Madhu Sudan, as a result, was ran over by the track and died instantly. One F.I.R. was lodged with Liluah Police Station being no. 134/2008 dated 10.07.2008 against the appellant -driver of the vehicle mentioned above and a case under Sections 279/304 Indian Penal Code was started against him. In Course of investigation the offending vehicle was seized. The dead body of Madhu Sudan was sent for post mortem, inquest was done, witnesses were examined, sketch map for the place of occurrence was prepared, mechanical report of the seized vehicle was collected and finally a charge -sheet under Sections 279/304 of Indian Penal Code was filed against the appellant. Learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the appellant under Sections 279 and 304 of Indian Penal Code to which the appellant pleaded not guilty. As a result, the trial commenced. In course of trial, six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The F.I.R., mechanical report, sketch map, inquest report, seizure list and post -mortem report were also admitted into evidence and marked exhibits on behalf of the prosecution. Upon consideration of the evidence on record, oral and documentary, the learned Court found that the accused committed offences under Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code and accordingly passed the Judgment and order of sentence which is impugned in this appeal. Mr. Suman De, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the alleged eye -witnesses did not mention the number of the offending truck and could not identify the appellant as the driver of the same. Only the lodger of the F.I.R., i.e. P.W. ­ 1, mentioned the number of the truck which, according to his statement was told by the police official in the police station at the time of writing down the F.I.R.. Mr. De contended that the truck was seized from Bally Toll Plaza about seven kilometers away from the place of occurrence. Neither the seized truck nor the appellant was placed before T. I. Parade for identification by any of the witnesses.
(3.) MR . De contended further that there is no whisper in the evidence in any manner to show that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the car in rush and negligent way knowing very well that it was endangering human life. He further contended that no question was put to the appellant in course of his examination under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code that he was the driver of the offending vehicle. No question was also put to him for his explanation whether he was driving the vehicle in rush and negligent way so as to endanger human life and caused death of Madhu Sudan on the fateful date. He has contended further that learned Court has taken view from his personal knowledge and came to a conclusion that there was a ditch which the driver of the offending vehicle wanted to avoid and hit the bye -cycle of Madhu Sudan resulting in his death. He contended that the Judgement is neither based on evidence on record nor on any strong probability. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.;