The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove culpable or gross negligence for conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, and the prejudicial impact of the non-examination of the Investigating Officer.

A.K. Goswami, J.

1. This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.2.2003 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Karimganj in Criminal Appeal No. 26(4) of 2001 dismissing the appeal and upholding the conviction and sentence of the accused Petitioner under Sections 304-A/279 IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 304-A IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 30 days under Section 279 IPC.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.1.1996 at about 8.55 P.M., one Auto-Rickshaw with Registration No. AS-10-1633, which was driven by the accused Petitioner in a rash and negligent manner, knocked down one Md. Mubarak Ali, who was aged about 70 years, on the National Highway-44, causing grievous injuries to him. Md. Mubarak Ali was taken to the Civil Hospital, Karimganj, where he succumbed to his injuries. With the aforesaid allegation, an FIR was lodged by one Ashis Kumar Dey, Sub-Inspector of Police under Badarpur Police Station and accordingly, Badarpur Police Station Case No. 10/96 under Section 279/304-A IPC was registered.

3. On completion of investigation, and finding materials, police submitted charge sheet against the Petitioner under Section 279/304-A IPC. Charge under Sections 279/304-A IPC having been explained to the accused Petitioner, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the trial, the prosecution examined five (5) witnesses while defence adduced no evidence. It appears that the defence plea was of denial. In his examination under Section 313Code of Criminal Procedure also, the accused Petitioner had stated that he had not driven the vehicle at a high speed and that the accident had resulted due to carelessness of the deceased. The learned trial Court as well as learned appellate Court concurrently found that the accused Petitioner had driven the Auto-Rickshaw in a rash and negligent manner resulting in causing of death of Md. Mubarak Ali.

5. I have heard Mr. B.M. Choudhury, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.

6. Mr. Choudhury has criticized the judgments of the learned Courts below on the ground that in spite of the fact that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the accused was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. He has also submitted that the non-examination of the Investigating Officer to prove the case of the prosecution has severely prejudiced the Petitioner inasmuch as the contradiction of the prosecution witnesses could not be proved. In absence of sketch map, the location of the place where the accident had taken place is also speculative in character. It is also the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that in any view of the matter, speed of the vehicle is not a decisive criteria to hold that a particular vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. Mr. Choudhury also tries to impeach the credibility of prosecution witnesses -2,3 and 4 by suggesting that from their evidence, it becomes doubtful as to whether they had really witnessed the incident. The learned Counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered in Ranjit Singh v. State of Assam, reported in 1997 (3) GLT 126, Kriti Singh v. State of Assam, reported in 2005 (2) GLT 274, Rangbahadur Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P., reported in (2000) 3 SCC 454 and Madhab Bagh v. State of Orissa, reported in 1992 Cri LJ 116 to support his contention.

7. Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam on the other hand, contends that both the courts having concurrently recorded the guilt of the Petitioner and there being no perversity in the judgments put to challenge in the instant revision petition, no case for interference with the judgments impugned is made out and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.