The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for corroboration in the prosecution evidence and the need to establish the identity of the accused for a finding of conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Talapatra

1. Heard Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel, appearing for the revision petitioner as well as Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Additional P.P., representing the State.

2. At the very outset, Mr. Pal, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that both the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court suffer from perversity as findings cannot get any support from the evidence.

3. The prosecution case as it emerges from the record is that on 07.11.2008 at around 1100 hours, one, Smt. Tuntun Chakraborty, wife of the informant was waiting with her son namely, Sourav Chakraborty at the road side on Sachindranagar Mandai road for boarding the vehicle to go to Jirania Ramthakur Ashram along with some other passengers. At that time, a TATA Magic vehicle came and it was kept in stationery condition for facilitating the passengers to board in. During that time, another Cruiser vehicle No. TR-01-B-3883 came with high speed and dashed Sourav, who received fatal injuries on his person and ultimately, succumbed to death. On the basis of that information, Jirania P.S. Case No. 73/2008 under Section 279/304A of IPC was registered and on completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed on finding prima facie materials against the revision petitioner.

4. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala took cognizance of the offence under Section 279/304A of IPC framed the charge against the petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During trial, as many as 8 witnesses were examined and four documents/material were brought on evidence.

6. The case was then transferred to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No. 4, West Tripura for trial.

7. Having found on purported appreciation of the evidence that the prosecution succeeded driving home the charge, the learned Magistrate returned finding of conviction under both the Sections i.e. under Section 279 and 304A of the IPC.

8. Awakened by the judgment reported in (2000) 5 SCC 2, a deterrent sentence was considered by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner was sentenced to suffer a rigorous imprisonment of 6 months under Section 279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under Section 304A of IPC.

9. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the revision petitioner preferred appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala being Criminal Appeal No. 04(1)/2011 which later on was transferred to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, West Tripura, Agartala.

10. Learned Additional Sessions judge even though confirmed the finding of the learned Trial Judge, but, interfered with the sentence holding that the sentence as has been given under Section 304A IPC, takes away the requirement to give further sentence under Section 279 of the IPC. But the sentence as imposed by the learned Trial Court under Section 304A IPC was upheld by the appellate Court by the judgment and order dated 16.08.2011. As such the challenge is against the judgment and order dated 16.08.2011 as passed in Criminal Appeal 04 (01)/2011.

11. Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner attached much emphasis on three grounds calling for interference. (1) The place of occurrence was not corroborated rather the same got indicated divergently by the prosecution witnesses to variety of places. The Courts below did not consider that aspect of the matter while returning a judgment of conviction (2). It was stressed much on the situation that when the offending vehicle was going to overtake stationery vehicle, it is hardly believable that there can be any high speed driving on that material point of time and (3) there was no examination of the alleged offending vehicle by any expert such as the Motor Vehicle Inspector whether that accident occurred due to any mechanical disorder. As such the finding of