Blog

The petitioner has undergone simple imprisonment for 10 days for an offence under Section 279 of IPC and further imprisonment of one year with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, he will have to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days for an offence under Section 304-A of IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently held in the case Hon’ble Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary in the matter of Budheswar Das v. The State of Jharkhand. [ Cr. Revision No. 845 of 2012]. 

The background of the case arises from the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been convicted for an offence under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code alleged to be the driver of the offending vehicle, but there is no evidence of record and no findings of the petitioner being driving the vehicle. No witness has identified the petitioner as being the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the alleged accident. No definite findings that the petitioner was driving the said truck at the time of the accident in a negligent manner. The truck was left by the driver at the spot and investigating the place of the accident took place right before the truck. The investigating officer started investigating and submitted a charge sheet against the driver stating that the accident took place by the said truck. No material in record to show as to how and in what manner the petitioner is involved with the alleged offence and even the investigation officer in a deposition has not stated the manner in which the petitioner has been implicated in the case. The petitioner has been convicted of the offence under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-.   

During the cross-examination, the eyewitness to the occurrence started that the truck was on high speed and dashed one scooter and the rider fell down on the left side of the road and died on the spot. The driver of the truck ran away from the truck. But the witness stated that he didn’t see the driver of the offending vehicle. 

The Hon’ble Court finds “that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the petitioner beyond a shadow of all reasonable doubts, as they have not been able to produce any evidence that the petitioner was driving the at the time and place of occurrence. Therefore, the petitioner is acquitted and discharged from the liabilities under the bail bond”. 

Click here for the Judgment.

Judgment Reviewed by Kaviya S.