- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 18.11.2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chatra, in Cr. Appeal No. 30 of 2005, whereby the appeal filed against the Judgment dated 2.9.2005 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Chatra, in G.R. Case No. 236 of 2000 / T.R. No. 834 of 2005, was dismissed with modification in sentence by the learned Appellate Court below. It may be stated that the Trial Court below had found the petitioner guilty for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC and convicted him for the same. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the petitioner was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 279 IPC and one year and six months under Section 304A IPC and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. On appeal filed against the said Judgment, the Appellate Court below dismissed the appeal with modification in the sentence passed under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, and directed the petitioner to make the payment of fine of Rs.25,000.00 to the informant by way of compensation. The case relates to a motor vehicle accident and the wife of the informant died when she was crushed under the wheels of a bus, which has been described as 'Hemkund Bus' in the FIR. On the basis of the fradbeyan of the Informant, Chatra (Sadar) P.S. Case No.73 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. No.236 of 2000 was instituted for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC and investigation was taken up. After investigation, police submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner finding that the bus was being driven by him rashly and negligently, due to which the wife of the informant had died.
(3.) FROM the Lower Court Record it appears that the substance of accusation was explained to the petitioner and he was put to trial. In course of trial, five witnesses were examined by the prosecution, including the informant and the doctor. It appears that P.Ws 1 to 4 are the eyewitness to the accident, including the informant, and they have deposed about the petitioner in their deposition and they also claimed to identify the petitioner in the Court. On all the occasions, the petitioner was on representation through Advocate. Doctor was examined as PW­5 and he has also proved the post mortem report. On the basis of the evidence brought on record, the Trial Court found the petitioner guilty for the offences under Section 279 and 304A of the IPC and convicted and sentenced him for the same as aforementioned. The Appellate Court below dismissed the appeal with modification in sentence as mentioned above.;