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.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.

Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs. P. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.

2. This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE challenging the judgment and order dated 05.12.2008 passed by the learned learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat in G.R. Case No.1046/2007 affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat in Criminal Appeal No.01/2009.

3. On 04.10.2007, the four year old girl Nandini Gogoi was crossing the National High Way No.37, a car bearing Registration No.AS-03G-0115 (TATA Indica) driven by the present petitioner, was coming from the direction of Bongaon and going towards Dergaon, had hit the girl on the middle of the National Highway. The baby girl sustained serious injury. She had to be taken to Dibrugarh Medical College & Hospital. But unfortunately, on 05.10.2007, the baby had succumbed to her injuries.

4. Police registered the case being Dergaon P.S. Case No.250/2007 under Sections 279 /304-A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . Ultimately, on conclusion of investigation, police filed the charge sheet against the present petitioner under Section 279 and 304-A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

5. The trial court convicted the petitioner under both the sections of law. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and was directed to pay a fine of ₹500/- for each of the said offences.

6. The petitioner preferred an appeal. The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

7. Though a revisional court normally does not go through the evidence. But in this case, this Court had to go through the evidence as the petitioner has claimed that there is no evidence in this case to prove that the petitioner was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. According to the learned senior counsel Mr. Mahanta, there is evidence in this case to prove that the vehicle was driven in an average of speed of 60/70 km. per hour and in a National Highway this speed is less than normal speed of other vehicles. According to Mr. Mahanta, a four year old minor girl without being escorted by anybody crossing a National Highway is a dangerous proposition of fact. Mr. Mahanta has submitted that the vehicle was not driven in a rash and negligent manner.

8. In support of his submissions, Mr. Mahanta has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court that was delivered in State of Karnataka v. Satish , (1998) 8 SCC 493 . The factual matrix of this case is like this– Truck No. MYE-3236 being driven by the respondent turned turtle while crossing a “nalla” on 25-11-1982 at about 8.30 a.m. The accident resulted in the death of 15 persons and receipt of injuries by about 18 persons, who were travelling in the fully loaded truck. The respondent was charge- sheeted and tried. The learned trial court held that the respondent drove the vehicle at a high speed and it was on that account that the accident took place. The respondent was convicted for offences under Sections 279 , 337, 338 and 304-A IPC and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. The respondent challenged his conviction and sentence before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum. While the conviction and sentence imposed upon the respondent for the offence under Section 279 IPC was set aside, the appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentenced the respondent for offences under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 IPC. On a criminal revision petition being filed by the respondent bef