Back
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
Md. Bahar Ali @ Sahadulali S/o Md Muslim Ali – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Ms. B Sarma, learned Amicus for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.
2. The present application is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. assailing judgment and order dated 08.02.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tinsukia in GR case No. 57/2011 sentencing the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo 7 days Simple Imprisonment under Section 279 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment 7 days and also to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 months under Section 304(A) IPC. The further challenge is order dated 08.08.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia in Criminal Appeal No. 10(2)/2013 arising out of GR case No. 57/2011 dismissing the appeal, while reducing the period of imprisonment from 4 months to 3 months.
3. Ms. B Sarma, learned Amicus for the petitioner contends that both the learned courts below have committed error of law and both the decisions are perverse inasmuch as there is no iota of evidence to suggest that the petitioner was driving it in a rash and negligent manner except, that the vehicle was driven a
High speed alone does not prove rash and negligent driving; credible evidence is required to establish such behavior.
The conviction under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC was overturned due to insufficient evidence of rash and negligent driving.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was driving in a 'rash and negligent' manner; mere high speed does not suffice to establish guilt under Sections 279 and 304A IPC.
Conviction under IPC Sections 279 and 304A requires proof of rashness or negligence, which was established through evidence of excessive speed and failure to brake.
The court determined that mere speed does not prove negligence or rashness without evidential support, emphasizing the prosecution's burden to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must prove charges of criminal negligence or rashness beyond reasonable doubt, and the principle of res ipsa loquitur cannot be invoked in the absence of conclusive evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
