Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1169
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.
Rupjyoti Das S/o LT. Mohi Kanta Das – Appellant
VERSUS
The State Of Assam – Respondent
Crl.Rev.P. 3 of 2012
Decided On : 08-05-2025
Advocate for the Petitioner: MR.D C K HAZARIKA, Adv.
Advocate for the Respondent: PP, ASSAM, Adv.
Conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the accused's involvement in the crime; mere circumstantial evidence is insufficient for culpability.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 279, 304-A - Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 397, 401 - Revision of conviction - Accused charged with causing death of a school girl by sudden rash driving - Lower courts failed to establish that accused was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, leading to wrongful conviction. (Paras 3, 22, 23)
(B) While the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the failure to link the accused to the vehicle involved in the accident leads to acquittal. (Paras 21, 23)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was driving a vehicle that ran over a girl, who later died from her injuries; the trial court convicted the appellant based on witness testimonies.
Findings of Court:
The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was driving the vehicle responsible for the accident.
Issues: The court primarily addressed who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and the sufficiency of evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that the prosecution must prove the accused's act of driving the vehicle leading to the fatality, which it failed to do, thus resulting in overturning the conviction.
Result: Revision petition allowed; judgment set aside; accused acquitted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application to challenge conviction (Para 2) |
| 2. the facts surrounding the accident and proceedings. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. witness statements regarding the incident. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18) |
| 4. principles of proving criminal liability. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 5. decision to set aside previous rulings. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT ;
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.
Heard Mr. D.C.K. Hazarika, the counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.
2. This is an application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE challenging the judgment and order dated 20.03.2010 passed by the learned learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagaon, Assam in G.R. Case No.1820/2005.
3. On 25.10.2005, the petitioner was driving a TATA Sumo Vehicle bearing Registration No.AS-02A-5235. Near Agriculture University Complex at Shillangani, Nagaon, the said vehicle ran over a school girl. She was immediately taken to the hospital but she succumbed to her injuries. On the basis of an oral complaint, Nagaon Police Station registered the G.D. Entry No.505 dated 25.10.2005. A person called Siddique Ali had lodged an FIR before police. Finally, police filed the charge sheet under Sections 279, 304-A, 338 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE against the present petitioner.
4. During the trial, the prosecution side examined 6 (Six) witnesses. The petitioner did not examine any witnesses.
5. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court convicted the petitioner only under Sections 279 and 304-A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .
6. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaon. The petitioner/appellant claimed before the appellate court that the G.D. Entry which was exhibited as Ext.A, did not have the registration number of the TATA Sumo vehicle. The appellate court held that non-mentioning of the registration number of the vehicle in the G.D. Entry, does not have any consequences in the case. The appellate court found the evidence satisfactory and affirmed the conviction of the appellant/ petitioner.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.
8. The first witness to be examined in this case was Rahimuddin (PW-1). He is a shopkeeper and his shop was situated near the place of occurrence. He claimed that he had seen a TATA Sumo vehicle hitting a girl. According to this witness, the driver of the said vehicle stopped the vehicle there and ran away leaving behind the vehicle. This witness has stated that the said vehicle was driven in a very high speed and the accident took place because of the fault of the driver.
9. In his cross-examination, Rahimuddin has stated that many vehicles often travel through the road where the accident took place. He stated that his shop is at a distance of about 20 feet from the place of occurrence.
10. The second prosecution witness is Ismail Ali/Sheikh (PW-2). According to this witness, two girls were coming together and a TATA Sumo vehicle hit one of those girls from behind. The witness has further disclosed that the driver of the vehicle had stopped the vehicle there, then came out of the vehicle and ran away. The witness further disclosed that the driver of the vehicle was careless.
11. During cross-examination, he stated that at the time of the accident, he was sitting in a tea shop near the place of occurrence. After hearing the cacophony, he came out of the tea shop and saw that a girl was lying on the road. The witness reached the girl and tried to revive her as she was lying unconscious. This time, this witness has stated that he saw a TATA Sumo vehicle running away from the place of occurrence. This witness further disclosed that he did not know who was driving the Said TATA Sumo vehicle.
12. The third prosecution witness was Abdul Malek (PW-3). He is also a shopkeeper having his shop near the place of occurrence. At the relevant time of occurrence, he heard l
