SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Gau) 1492

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Hitesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Sri Khirod Gogoi – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 44 of 2009
Decided On : 13-02-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. T.J. Mahanta, Ms. P. Bhattacharyya, Mr. D.P. Jaiswal.
For the Respondent: Mr. P.S. Lahkar.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 397, 401, 313 – Indian Penal Code,1908 - Sections 279,304(A), 337,338 - Accident – Claim of Compensation - Revision petition is filed under Section read with section of Code of Criminal Procedure against judgment case is that a mini bus bearing registration was coming from Negron to Galahad met with an accident and passengers in bus got injured and One of passengers died at spot and aforesaid mini bus while proceeding towards Galahad driver of said bus noticed a Marti car coming from opposite side and it was about to collide with bus and to avoid collision driver of mini bus took left turn while bus was on move and it rolled down on road passengers sustained injuries and one of passengers died as a result of accident and brother of deceased lodged an FIR with Police Outpost which forwarded same to Police Station and same was registered as Police Station –Held, On decision of alleged offence under Section of IPC and there is no instance in evidence on record to show that vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner in a public way by accused-revision petitioner and Merely saying that it was in excessive speed does not necessarily mean that accused-revision petitioner had driven vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and in absence of any definite evidence as regards speed of vehicle on basis of observation of passengers it cannot be assumed that it was in excessive speed and in considered view of this Court evidence led by prosecution is completely insufficient to rope accused-revision petitioner with commission of alleged offences particularly when there is an admission that accident took place while accused-revision petitioner tried to avert head on collision with Marti car coming from opposite direction judgments of trial Court as well as appellate Court are set aside send down LCR along with a copy of this judgment and order - Petition allowed

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

1. This revision petition is filed, under Section 397, read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 23-05-2006, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat, in GR Case No. 620/2003, convicting the accused petitioner, under Sections 279/337/304(A) of the IPC and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for 15 (fifteen) days, for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC; to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for 15 (fifteen) days for the offence punishable under Section 337 of the IPC and to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 (one) year, for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of the IPC as well as the judgment and order, dated 28-08-2006, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat, in Criminal Appeal No. 22/2006 dismissing the criminal appeal and upholding the judgment and order, dated 23-05-2006 of the learned trial Court.

2. I have heard Ms. P. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused revision petitioner and Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

3. The facts leading to the prosecution case is that a 709 mini bus, bearing registration No. AS-05-7575 was coming from Nagaon to Golaghat, met with an accident at Haldhibari. The passengers in the bus got injured. One of the passengers, namely, Abdul Malik died at the spot. The aforesaid mini bus, while proceeding towards Golaghat, the driver of the said bus noticed a Maruti car coming from the opposite side and it was about to collide with the bus. To avoid the collision, the driver of the mini bus took left turn, while the bus was on move, and it rolled down on the road. The passengers sustained injuries and one of the passengers died as a result of the accident.

4. On the above facts, the brother of the deceased, Majibur Rahman, lodged an FIR with Kohora Police Outpost, which forwarded the same to Bokakhat Police Station, and the same was registered as Bokakhat Police Station Case No. 114/2003, under Sections 279/304(A)/337/338 of the IPC, investigated into it, collected evidence, and then, submitted charge-sheet under Sections 279/304(A)/337/338 of the IPC against the accused-revision petitioner.

5. On appearance of the accused-petitioner, a formal charge, under Sections 279/304(A)/ 337/338 of the IPC was framed to which he pleaded innocence. Therefore, the trial commenced. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 1973 the accused- petitioner denied the allegations made against him and also declined to adduce any evidence from his side.

6. In this case, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses, including the Investigating Police Officer and the defence examined none. Thereafter, vide judgment and order, dated 06-07-2003, the learned trial Court convicted the accused-revision petitioner, as stated above. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat, affirmed the judgment of the learned trial Court convicting and sentencing the accused-revision petitioner, as indicated above.

7. I have meticulously scanned the evidence on record and it appears therefrom that the accident took place involving the aforesaid mini bus No. AS-05-7575 is an admitted position. There is also clear evidence on record to show that some of the passengers of the said mini bus got injured in the accident and one of them died.

8. Now, the question to be decided by this Court is whether it is due to negligent driving on the part of the accused-revision petitioner that some passengers got injured and one passenger died.

9. The evidence of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 makes it appear that they were travelling in the vehicle when the accident occurred and they were heard saying in their evidence that while the accused-revision petitioner tried to avoid the head on collision with the Maruti car, turned the bus towards the left, and due to high speed, it rolled down on the ro






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top