Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No. 931 of 2002 In the matter of an application under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. =========================================================== Awadhesh Mishra @ Awadhesh Mishar, S/O Late Indrashan Mishra, Resident of Village- Saichani, P.S. Raghunathpur, District- Siwan. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Briksh Singh Pahepuri, Advocate Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pranav Kumar, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 19-07-2012 Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Heard Mr. Ram Briksh Singh Pahepuri assisted by Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pranav Kumar learned A.P.P. for the State. The present revision application is directed against the Appellate Judgment and Order dated 22.08.2002 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 1999/40 of 2002 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. III, Chapra by which the judgment and order dated 17.08.1999 passed in G.R. No. 1707/89, T.R. No. 76/99 by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chapra has been upheld with modification in the sentence. The petitioner was made accused in Dighwara P.S. Case No. 61/89 registered for offence under Sections Patna High Court CR. REV. No.931 of 2002 dt.19-07-2012 2 / 4 2 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. During course of investigation the name of the petitioner transpired as the person who was driving the truck which is alleged to have killed the son of the informant. Upon trial the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under [STATUTE] and simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence under [STATUTE] . Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. In appeal, the conviction under [STATUTE] was upheld but the sentence was modified and fine of Rs. 5,000/- was waived without the term of imprisonment having been interfered with. He was, however, been acquitted under [STATUTE] . Earlier the case had been admitted for hearing and lower Court records were called for and the petitioner was directed to be released on bail. The lower Court records have since been received. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the trial Court as well as the appellate Court judgment on the ground that the story as propounded in the First Information Report as well as the statement given by the prosecution witnesses contain serious discrepancies with regard to the time, mode and manner of occurrence. It is further submitted that admittedly the place of occurrence Patna High Court CR. REV. No.931 of 2002 dt.19-07-2012 3 / 4 3 was in the village and even if it is taken to be true that the occurrence took place between 9-11 P.M., it is unbelievable that there would be people present there in order to become eye witnesses to the said incident. Learned counsel further submits that as per the versions of the prosecution witnesses itself it appears that the driver of the truck was caught at the spot and handed over to the police. However, neither is there any recording of such fact by the police nor there is evidence to show as to what happened to the person who was caught and brought before the police and how he was released from the custody later on. Learned counsel submits that the conviction is based only on conjectures and surmises and the guilt has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubts and thus benefit should be given to the petitioner. Learned A.P.P. for the State has supported the impugned judgment and submits that the discrepancies pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner are marginal and within the limit of human variations. It is submitted that the same do not render the basic focus of the prosecution infirm or doubtful with regard to the fact that the petitioner was the person driving the truck which resulted in the death of the son of the informant. Upon hearing learned counsels for the parties and going through the judgments of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and also the materials available on Patna High Court CR. REV. No.931 of 2002 dt.19-07-2012 4 / 4 4 record, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the order of conviction. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner has undergone imprisonment for some time, this Court is of the view that ends of justice have been served and the petitioner sufficiently punished. Accordingly, this revision application stands disposed off without interfering in the order of conviction, but modifying the sentence to the period already undergone in custody. The petitioner is discharged of the liabilities of his bail bonds and sureties. Patna High Court Dated 19th July, 2012 Anand Kr./NAFR (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 304A

Statute Text:
Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. Causing death by rash or negligent act. Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.