Back
2005 Supreme(Gau) 580
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (AGARTALA BENCH)
TINLIANTHANG VAIPHEI, J.
Babul Chakraborty – Appellant
Vs.
State of Tripura – Respondent
Cri. Revn. Petn. No. 15 of 1999
Decided On: 10.08.2005
Advocate Appeared
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: A.C. Bhowmik, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: A. Ghosh, P.P. In-charge
Lenient penalties in motor accident cases erode public confidence in the criminal justice system. Deterrent sentences should be imposed to ensure public safety and prevent reckless driving.
Headnote:
Rash and negligent driving resulting in death - Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Section 279 penalizes rash and negligent driving on a public way endangering human life. Section 304-A penalizes causing death by a rash and negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide. The court discussed the difference between the two offences and concluded that the petitioner could be convicted under both sections. The court also noted that the sentences imposed by the trial court were lenient and should have been more severe considering the nature of the offence and the need for deterrence in motor accident cases.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for rash and negligent driving resulting in the death of a passenger. The petitioner appealed the sentence, but the appellate court upheld the conviction and sentence. The petitioner filed a revision petition challenging the judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution had established the petitioner's identity as the driver of the offending vehicle and proved that the accident occurred due to his reckless driving. The court also discussed the difference between the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC and concluded that the petitioner could be convicted under both sections. The court further noted that the sentences imposed by the trial court were lenient and should have been more severe considering the nature of the offence and the need for deterrence in motor accident cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were proper and should not be disturbed. The court emphasized the need for deterrent sentences in motor accident cases and stated that lenient penalties erode public confidence in the criminal justice system. The court dismissed the revision petition and ordered the petitioner to surrender to the trial court to serve the sentences.
Result: Revision petition dismissed. Petitioner to surrender for serving the sentences.
T. Vaiphei, J.
1. The correctness of the judgment dated 6-3-1999 passed by the Ld. Add). Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura in Crl. Appeal No. 6(1) of 1999 upholding the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Ld. Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Belonia in G.R. No. 49 of 1997 is in question in this revision petition.
2. The material facts leading to the filing of this revision petition may be noted first. On 5-3-1997 at about 9 p.m. the informant, Jubaraj Das and some others belonging to Laogang village had hired a Jeep bearing No. TRT-1557 for going to their village. When the Jeep was about to reach Laogang village market, it fell down on the roadside stream, which resulted in causing injuries to the informant and other passengers. However, one of the passengers, namely, Subhashi Das, fell under the pressure of the vehicle in the accident, was severely injured and succumbed to her injuries on reaching Santirbazar Hospital.
3. It would appear that on the basis of the FIR lodged by the informant, Santirbazar Police Station Case No. 15 of 1997 under Sections 279/338 & 304-A, IPC was registered. After investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections279/338 & 304-A, IPC before the Ld. S.D.J.M. Belonia to stand the trial. The trial Court took cognizance of the offences and framed the charges against the petitioner under the aforesaid sections of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses to bring home the charges against the petitioner. Out of these 10 witnesses, P.Ws. 2, 4, 5, 6 & 7 were the passengers of the ill-fated Jeep and are, accordingly, eye-witnesses to the accident. No evidence was adduced, on behalf of the petitioner but his defence was one of denial of the offences charged against him. At the conclusion of the trial, the Ld. S.D.J.M. found the petitioner guilty of the offences under Sections279 and 304-A, IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one month for the offence of Section279, IPC while he was sentenced to suffer R.I. for five months with a fine of Rs. 5.000/- for the offence of Section 304-A, IPC. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Belonia, who, however, dismissed the appeal observing that the sentence was extremely minimum, vide the judgment dated 6-3-1999. This judgment is now under challenge in this revision.
5. On careful examination of the findings of both the Courts below, 1 have no hesitation to hold that there is absolutely no infirmity therein to call for the interference of this Court in the conviction of the petitioner. P.Ws. 2, 4, 5, 6 & 7 who were the passengers of the offending Jeep, all of whom were injured in the accident, have clearly identified that the petitioner was the driver of the vehicle in question. Though they did not know the name of the driver, there is no reason why they should not be asked to establish his identity. The Ld. Additional Sessions Judge recorded the findings that the petitioner voluntarily surrendered before the Court and obtained bail therefrom without in any way disputing his identity as the driver of the Jeep bearing No. TRT 1557 and that the seizure of his driving licence as the driver of the offending vehicle had not been challenged by him. The Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge also held that it was quite natural that the passengers of the Jeep would not ordinarily know the name of the driver of the vehicle in which they were travelling. The appellate Court also took note of the fact that it was the petitioner who, after his release on bail, applied for and obtained on Zima the offending Jeep. The above findings of the appellate Court cannot be said to be perverse. Therefore, in my considered view, the identity of the petitioner as the driver of the offending Jeep has been clinchingly established by the prosecution.
6. It is not the case of the
