The High Court affirmed the conviction for death by negligence under IPC Section 304(A) but modified the sentence to the period already undergone due to the case's long pendency over three decades.
The sentence is modified to the period already undergone; the application is dismissed with this modification.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Cr. Revision No. 392 of 2000 (R)
Against the judgment dated 1.9.2000, passed by the learned 4tht Additional District & Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, in Cr. Appeal No. 55/1991.
..... Petitioners
Versus The State of Jharkhand. ……. Opposite Party
For the Petitioners : Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr.Advocate : Mrs. Amrita Kumari, Advocate For the State : APP
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
By Court
Heard the parties.
This application is directed against the judgment dated 1.9.2000, passed by the learned 4th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, in Cr. Appeal No. 55/1991, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.4.1991, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Daltonganj, Palamau in G.R. Case No. 1647 of 1982, convicting the petitioners for the offence under section 304 (A) of IPC and sentencing them to undergo S.I. for one year has been affirmed.
It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no. 1 is a contractor whereas petitioner no. 2 is his Munsi. It has further been submitted that the Investigating Officer as well as Doctor have not been examined in this case, which has caused prejudice to the defence. It has also been submitted that most of the witnesses examined have not supported the prosecution case. Learned counsel submits that basic ingredient of Section 304 A of IPC has not been applied in the judgment of learned trial court or in the judgment of learned appellate court. Learned counsel further submits that in absence of proper appreciation of the evidence on record, impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside.
It appears that an FIR was instituted on the allegation that petitioner no. 1, who was a contractor, engaged labourers for breaking of stones on contract basis, which were used for
-2-
construction of roads. The business of petitioner no. 1 used to be looked after by the petitioner no. 2 being his Munsi. It is alleged that the informant along with his cousin brother and other persons does work of stone breaking and while doing work they used to go deep into the ground but no provision has been given for their safety by the petitioners. It is alleged that on 3.12.1982 while cousin brother of the informant was doing work in the mine, earth fell on him, as a result of which, he died subsequently. On the basis of the FIR, G.R. Case No. 1647 of 1982 was instituted and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted leading to taking of cognizance and trial proceeded accordingly. Learned trial court having found the petitioners guilty for the offence under sections 304A of IPC had convicted them and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, which was subsequently affirmed in Cr. Appeal No. 55 of 1991.
The prosecution in course of trial had examined 12 witnesses. P.Ws. 5 and 6 were tendered by the prosecution. P.W-1Ehtam Haque is the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police who has proved the formal FIR. P.W-2-Rajdeo Rai is a police constable, who has proved the signature of the Investigating Officer on the chargesheet. P.W-3Kewal Mochi claims to be a person present at the place of incident but he failed to identify the petitioners in dock and also failed to give the name of the contractor. P.W-4-Lakhu Mochi although claims to be a witness present near the place of occurrence but he failed to disclose the name of the contractor. P.W-7-Janeshwar Mochi was a witness who had subsequently been brought by the prosecution as he was never a witness in the chargesheet. P.W-8-Bipati Mahrain is the wife of the deceased who had stated that while working in the Mine, earth fell down on her husband, as a result of which, he died. P.W-9Mahabir Mochi is a witness who had stated that they used to sell stone chips to the person who gives higher price. P.W-10-Rajendra Ram is doing business of breaking stones for a quite long time. P.W-11-Mahabir Mochi has stated that the deceased used to cut stones on contracts and the stone was on level of road. P.W-12Budhan Oraon has stated that deceased was working alone in the alleged Mine.
Although several witnesses claimed to be present near the place of occurrence but none of the them have named the petitioner
-3-
no. 1, who is the contractor, whose work was being done by the deceased along with other persons. Although the petitioner no. 1 has not been named by several witnesses who were present at the place of occurrence but that by itself would not frustrate the prosecution case. It is an admitted fact that the deceased had died on account of falling earth, which was supported by the several prosecution witnesses. Although no finding has been given either by the learned trial court or by the learned appellate court with respect to rash and negligent act on the part of the petitioners leading to death of the deceased but the circumstances resulting in the incident does suggest that it was on account of not taking effective measures which caused death of the deceased. Such circumstances, therefore, having rightly been appreciated by the learned trial court as well as by the learned appellate court while convicting the petitioners for the offence under section 304 A of IPC, in such circumstances, therefore, no interference is necessitated in the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioners.
However, as regards the sentence, which has been awarded to the petitioners is concerned, FIR appears to have been instituted in the year 1982 and more than three decades have passed. They have remained in custody for sometime after dismissal of their appeal. Considering the said fact, sending the petitioners back in custody for serving out the rest period of sentence would not serve any fruitful purpose in view of long pendency of the case and therefore the sentence is modified to the period already undergone. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 13th February, 2017 Rakesh/NAFR
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction for causing death by negligence under section 304(A) IPC should be interfered with despite lack of specific rashness findings.
Whether the petitioners should be sent back to custody to serve the remainder of the sentence after decades of pendency.
Whether the quantum of sentence awarded requires modification given the long delay in the case.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Keshari Singh
Jagarnath Sao
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
