D.K.SINHA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision against the judgment dated 7.5.2004 passed by Shri A.P, Sharma, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Cr. Appeal No. 5/1998 whereby and whereunder the conviction of the petitioner by order dated 4.2.1998 by the Court of Shri P.N. Rai, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Daltonganj (Palamau) under Section 304 -A, IPC Was affirmed in G.R Case No. 1413/1993 whereby the petitioner was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year, in addition to that 3 months Rigorous Imprisonment for his conviction under Section 279, IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that while the informant with his mother was returning from Tumbagarh Hospital after her treatment and reached near village Doero, a Mini Bus 407 bearing registration No. BR -15L -1164 dashed his mother inflicting injuries on her right leg as a result of which she fell down and she became senseless. She was brought to Tumbagarh Hospital for her treatment but she succumbed her injury. On the statement of the informant, Daltonganj Sadar P.S. Case No. 365/1993 was lodged on 9.10.1993 for the offence under Section 279/304 -A, IPC and after investigation the charge -sheet was submitted against the petitioner being the driver of the said MiniBus in the aforesaid penal Sections. During trial the prosecution examined 4 witnesses viz. PW 1 Rajendra Prasad (informant), PW 2 Dr. Sita Ram Choudhary who conducted autopsy, PW 3 Prem Prasad and PW 4 Surendra Prasad. The informant (PW 1) has categorically narrated in his evidence as how the Bus No. BR -15L -1164 was being driven rashly and without blowing horn causing accident of his mother on the left side flank of the road who succumbed while being taken to Hospital. He identified the petitioner as the familiar since he was plying the bus regularly on the same route. PW 3 Prem Prasad though has supported the occurrence but he could not identify the driver since the driver had escaped with the vehicle. Similarly PW 4 has also supported the accident by 407 Model bus but could not identify the driver as he was there in the nearby hotel at the relevant time of occurrence. In the question put to the petitioner in course of his statement under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, he denied his involvement in such accident but asserted his false implication on the ground that the informant had inimical terms with him.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Courts below in succession failed to appreciate the fact that save and except PW 1 (informant) no other witness came forward to corroborate his statement on the point of identity of the driver of Mini Bus 407 bearing registration No. BR -15L -1164 in death case arising out of Motor Accident. In such a situation examination of the Motor Vehicle Inspector is necessary but in the present case M.V.I. was not examined so there was no expert opinion on the record about the involvement of the said Bus alleged to be driven by the petitioner causing accidental death of the victim. The IO has also not been examined which caused serious prejudiced to the petitioner and the finding of the Courts below are based upon the surmises and conjectures. The petitioner surrendered in the Court below on 29.12.2005 and since then he is in custody. Earlier also in course of trial he was in judicial custody for about one month.;