Patna High CourtCR. REV./443/2023dismissed

Kamleshwari Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

2024-04-29Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.443 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-29 Year-2008 Thana- AMARPUR District- Banka ====================================================== KAMLESHWARI MANDAL Son of Umesh Mandal R/O Mohalla - Golaghat, P.S.- Kotwali, District - Bhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar Bihar 2.

Jyotish Kumar Son of Late Badri Sah R/o Village - Chhoti Chandpur, P.S.- Sajour, District - Bhagalpur.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ambrish Kumar Jha For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary For the State :

Mr. Shyam Kr. Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 29-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned APP for the State.

2. This application has been filed against the order dated 02.02.2023 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 34 of 2019 by which the learned Sessions Judge, Banka has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order dated 23.07.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Banka i.e. the order of conviction of the petitioner under Section 304A. The sentence of two years has been awarded.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while arguing the case has submitted that there are some infirmities in the

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.443 of 2023(7) dt.29-04-2024 2/2 evidence of the witnesses and therefore, the petitioner deserved to be acquitted.

4. Learned APP for the State has opposed the application of the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner has been convicted by the trial Court and the conviction has been affirmed by the Appellate Court. Both the Courts have considered the evidence against the petitioner and have sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment.

5. During trial it has come that the petitioner was a driver of the tanker had hit the father and son in which the father died and the petitioner left the victims on road and ran away. The witnesses have supported the occurrence including the injured witnesses.

6. In the opinion of this Court, minor discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses will not affect the case of the prosecution and the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality in the impugned orders.

7. In view of the above discussion, this application stands dismissed.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Vikas/- U T