Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 419
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.
Sri. Anandi Rai S/o- Sri Sankar Rai - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam - Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.539 OF 2012
Decided On : 04-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. A. Lal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mrs. N. Das, Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere circumstantial evidence without direct identification is insufficient for conviction.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 397, 401, 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 427, 304(A) - Criminal revision petition seeking quashing of conviction and sentence - Petitioner convicted for causing death by negligence; however, the court found no evidence to substantiate the conviction - The trial court's reliance on witness testimony was deemed erroneous as key witnesses were hearsay and the primary eyewitness failed to identify the accused or the vehicle - The appellate court's affirmation of the conviction was also found to lack evidentiary support. (Paras 12, 16, 18)
(B) Burden of Proof - The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and mere circumstantial evidence without direct identification is insufficient for conviction. (Paras 12, 20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was convicted for causing the death of a cyclist in a traffic accident involving a truck. The trial court based its conviction on witness testimonies, which were largely hearsay, and one eyewitness who could not definitively identify the accused or the vehicle involved.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to connect the petitioner to the crime, leading to the conclusion that the conviction was based on no evidence.
Issues: The main issues included whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the guilt of the petitioner and whether the appellate court's affirmation of the conviction was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of direct evidence linking the petitioner to the crime rendered the conviction unsustainable, emphasizing that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Result: The criminal revision petition is allowed, and the petitioner is acquitted of all charges.
JUDGMENT & ORDER :
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.
Heard Mr. A. Lal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent.
2. This criminal revision petition is filed under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to “Cr.P.C”) seeking quashing of the judgment & order of conviction and sentence dated 18.04.2012 passed against the petitioner/accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Biswanath Chariali in G.R. case No. 628/2005 registered under Sections 279/427/304(A) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), whereby the petitioner/accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2(two) years under Section 304(A) of IPC, Rigorous Imprisonment for 6(six) months under Section 279 of IPC, and a payment of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 427 of the IPC; in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for another 2(two) months and the judgment & order dated 26.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.) Biswanath Chariali, (hereinafter referred to as the “appellate Court”) in Criminal Appeal No.22(S-2)/12 upholding the judgment of conviction of sentence passed by the trial Court in G.R. Case No. 628/2005.
3. The brief facts of the case is that on 24.11.2005 an F.I.R. was lodged alleging inter alia that on 24.11.2005 at around 9.30 a.m., while the informant’s maternal uncle’s son namely Padmeswar Tabu was coming on his bicycle, he was hit by a truck bearing registration No.AS-01-K- 5357, which was driven by its driver rashly and negligently. Accordingly, a case was registered and after completion of investigation, Charge-sheet was submitted whereafter, the trial Court framed charge under Sections 279/427/304(A) of IPC and the trial commenced. During trial, the prosecution adduced 6(six) prosecution witnesses, whereas the incriminating materials were put to the petitioner/accused in his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., which he generally denied and chose not to adduce any evidence. Thereafter, the trial Court convicted the petitioner/accused and sentenced thereunder, which was challenged in appeal by the petitioner/accused and the appellate Court was pleased to dismiss the same. Situated thus, the present criminal revision petition has been filed.
4. Mr. A. Lal, learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the judgment & order of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court is manifestly erroneous in law inasmuch as there is no evidence whatsoever, based on which the guilt of the petitioner/accused is established.
5. Per contra, Mrs. N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent submits that it is apparent from the evidence of the eyewitnesses that the petitioner/accused is guilty of the offences and hence the conviction rendered by the trial Court which is affirmed by the appellate Court ought not be disturbed by this Court.
6. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both the contending parties and have perused the material available on record.
7. It appears that the trial Court has held that PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 have not seen the occurrence but are mere hearsay witnesses. Paragraphs 7, 8, 9 & 10 of the judgment & order of the trial Court is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: -
“7. Before appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution side I would like to high light the prime contentions of the prosecution side. In the instant case in hand the case of the prosecution is that 'on 24-11-05 at 9-30 am son of maternal uncle of the informant named Padeswar Tabu was coming through 52 National High Road towards Gahapur through by-cycle at that time one truck no-AS-01K- 5357 was coming from Lakhimpur rashly and negligently dashed him in front of Gopalpur Girls High School and cashed death‟. So, it appears that prosecution side has to prov
