1997 (5) TMI 52 - SC - Customs

Order of conviction and sentence passed for various offences punishable under Sections 302 307 225 333 of the Indian Penal Code challenged Held that - The manner in which the incident took place leaves no manner of doubt that the appellant purposely and intentionally dashed against these Custom Officers wherein Mahindersinh was crushed to death. The appellant on the second time also brought the truck in speed after taking a turn and dashed against Somaji who sustained injuries and later on died in the hospital. In view of these circumstances we have no manner of doubt that the appellant had intentionally caused the deaths of Mahindersinh Rayjada and Somaji Thakor. The conviction of the appellant passed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code therefore does not suffer from any infirmity. The learned Advocate for the appellant was unable to point out any error in the impugned judgment as regards the convictions of the appellant passed on other counts. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal challenging conviction and sentence under various sections of the Indian Penal Code.
- Identification of the appellant as the driver of the truck involved in the incident.
- Evaluation of evidence presented by prosecution witnesses.
- Corroboration of evidence through FIR and witness testimonies.
- Analysis of the trial court's judgment and conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Supreme Court challenged the legality and correctness of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Designated Judge, Jam Nagar, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution's case revolved around an incident where two sepoys of the Customs Department died due to a truck dashing against them. The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced accordingly, while the other accused were acquitted. The main contention raised was regarding the identification of the appellant as the driver of the truck involved in the incident.

The prosecution relied on the evidence of witnesses, including P.N. Desai and Bharat Trivedi, to establish the identity of the appellant as the driver of the truck. The trial judge did not accept all the evidence presented but found the testimonies of P.N. Desai and Bharat Trivedi credible and unblemished. P.N. Desai's testimony detailed the events leading to the incident, where he saw the appellant driving the truck. The Supreme Court, after careful consideration, accepted the evidence of these witnesses as reliable in establishing the appellant's identity as the driver of the truck.

The FIR lodged by P.N. Desai shortly after the incident corroborated the details provided by the witnesses, further strengthening the case against the appellant. The evidence of P.N. Desai and Bharat Trivedi was found consistent and convincing, with no material brought forth during cross-examination discrediting their testimonies. The Supreme Court affirmed that the appellant intentionally caused the deaths of the two sepoys based on the evidence presented, leading to the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments against the conviction and sentence. The court upheld the trial court's judgment regarding the identification of the appellant as the driver of the truck and the intentional nature of the actions leading to the deaths of the sepoys. The conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was deemed valid, and the appeal was consequently dismissed.