The first information report is not an encyclopedia of the case of the prosecution – Jharkhand high court
A criminal revision petition was filed challenging the judgment and order of conviction passed in criminal appeal No.53 of 1996 in which the revision petitioner was convicted by the trial court under section 279,338 and 304 A of the Indian Penal Code. the petition was heard and dismissed by a single judge bench of HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY in the case of Balram Manjhi versus the state of Jharkhand (Cr. Rev. No.262 of 2001)
The crux of the case is that the petitioner while driving a truck in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of the son of the informant in a road accident. after the investigation, the petitioner was found for offenses punishable under Sections 279, 338, and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, and during the trial, no witness was examined by defense out of six witnesses and the father of the deceased was the only eye witness in the case and only considering that witness the court found the petitioner guilty under the offenses punishable under Section 279, 338 and 304 A of the Indian Penal Code. The present petition is filed against this judgment and order of conviction.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the conviction is based on no evidence and that the learned courts below could not appreciate the evidence in the record in its proper perspective and it is further submitted that the witness was not mentioned In the FIR by the police hence it is submitted that the conviction and the sentence of the revision-petitioners made by the impugned judgment of conviction returned by both the learned courts below be set aside.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state defended the judgment and submits that the ingredients of all the three offenses punishable under Section 279, 338, and 304 A of the Indian Penal Code are fulfilled based on witness testimony and it is submitted that there is nothing in the record to discard or disbelieve the testimony of the witnesses of the prosecution and since both the courts below have returned a concurrent finding of facts hence in the absence of any illegality, the same ought not to be interfered with. It is therefore submitted that this revision petition, being without any merit, be dismissed.
The court hearing the rival submissions decides that the witness has categorically supported the case of the prosecution and he has deposed about eye-witness account of the occurrence that the truck being rashly and negligently driven by the revision-petitioner crushed his son resulting in his death and it fulfills all the ingredients required to bring home the charges for the offenses punishable under Section 279, 338 and 304 A of the Indian Penal Code. The testimony of the witness has been found reliable by both the courts. It is important to mention that First Information Report is not the encyclopedia of the case of the prosecution. So when the testimony of a witness who is also the informant of the case is trustworthy and reliable, the same cannot be disbelieved merely for the reason that it is specifically not mentioned in the First Information Report.
The Hon’ble court mentions the settled principle of law through the case of Rattan Singh v. the State of Punjab, (1979) 4 SCC 719 and the case of Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2012) 9 SCC 284 and accordingly the court does not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned court below hence the criminal revision petition is disposed of.
Judgment reviewed by Naveen Sharma