RANCHI, India, Aug. 27 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on July 28:

1. Petitioner before this Court is a Driver of a passenger vehicle who has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 304A and 279 of the IPC and judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been affirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Giridih against which the instant criminal revision has been preferred.

2. As per the FIR on 04.07.2010 at about 10:00 AM, Nanhku Yadav met with an accident while he was riding his cycle dashed with a passenger vehicle bearing registration No. JH 11C 4912. It is alleged that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently.

3. On the basis of written report, Birni PS Case No. 98/2010 was registered under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC against the driver of the said vehicle.

4. Police on investigation, found case true and submitted charge sheet against the petitioner who was put on trial. Altogether six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and on the basis of which both the learned Courts below recorded a finding that the said vehicle was driven rashly and negligently resulting in the said accident.

5. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 are not eye witnesses and did not see the accident taking place and P.W.-4 is the only eye witness, but he could not identify the driver. In the absence of identification of the driver being driving the said vehicle at the relevant time of accident the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is not sustainable.

6. It is submitted by the learned A.P.P. for the State that the P.W.-4 could not identify the driver as the incidence took place eight years ago.

7. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and the materials on record, there cannot be any shrewd of doubt that deceased Nanhku Yadav died in a motor vehicle accident involving the vehicle no. JH 11C 4912. 8. Doctor (P.W.-5), who conducted autopsy has deposed that the fatal injuries sustained by the deceased was due to road traffic accident. There is however, no eye witness to state that passenger vehicle no. JH 11C 4912 was involved in the said accident. The only eye witness who has been examined as P.W.-4 has stated that he did not remember the name of the driver of the vehicle in the said accident. Further, he has also not stated the manner of accident.

9. The involvement of the said vehicle, speed and the manner of it being driven, the driver who was driving the said vehicle is under cloud. In this circumstance, the testimony of I.O., that he had seized the vehicle on information will not be sufficient to prove the charge against the petitioner.

Under the circumstances, judgment of conviction and order of sentence is set aside and this Criminal Revision is allowed.

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.