Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 2210
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.
Dhruba Jyoti Borah S/o Indreswar Borah – Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam and Another – Respondent
Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 473 of 2014
Decided On : 11-11-2025
For the Appellants : S. Kakoti, S. Borthakur, R. Hazarika, J. Roy
For the Respondent: M.P. Goswami
The court upheld the conviction of the accused for rash and negligent driving resulting in death, emphasizing the reliability of witness testimony and the limited scope of review in appellate proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 338, and 304(A) - Criminal revision petition against the judgment of the Sessions Judge modifying the sentence from 2 years to 6 months for rash and negligent driving resulting in death - The appellant argued that there were contradictions in witness testimonies and lack of evidence proving identity as the driver - The courts upheld conviction based on consistent witness accounts. (Paras 2, 3, 7, 10, 12, 14)
(B) Revisional Jurisdiction - Scope of the court's authority under Sections 397 and 401 of CrPC is limited to ensuring there is no manifest illegality in the conclusions of lower courts - This court cannot re-evaluate evidence unless gross injustice is evident. (Paras 14, 16)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of causing a vehicular accident that resulted in the death of Pabitra Gogoi. Both trial and appellate courts found him guilty based on eyewitness testimonies supporting the allegations of rash driving.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence, deeming it proportionate to the offense.
Issues: The primary issues were the validity of witness testimonies and the appropriateness of the imposed sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: The courts found no discrepancies in the evidence significant enough to overturn the conviction, underscoring the reliability of eyewitness accounts and the established standards for evaluating claims in revisional jurisdiction.
Result: Criminal revision petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.
1. Heard Mr. R. Hazarika, learned counsel for the accused petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State.
2. The instant criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 09.09.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Criminal Appeal No. 20/2014, whereby the appeal filed by the accused petitioner was partly allowed and the sentence of simple imprisonment for 2 years under Section 304 (A) of the IPC as has been awarded vide judgment dated 12.03.2014 passed in G.R. Case No. 1253/2011 by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat under Sections 279 /338/304(A)/427 has been modified to simple imprisonment for a period of six months with fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for another 45 days.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the informant, PW-1 lodged an FIR before the Teok Police Station on 24.08.2011 to the effect that on 21.08.2011 at about 4.00 PM his elder brother Pabitra Gogoi (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) while was driving his Tata ACE vehicle bearing registration No. AS 04 AC 0814 from Teok to Sivasagar side and upon reaching near Blue Heaven Dhaba situated near Jhanji Hahchora, Teok on the National Highway-37, one City Bus vehicle bearing Registration No. AS 03 E 0155 which was coming from the opposite direction being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner knocked down the said Tata ACE vehicle, for which the deceased received grievous injuries and later on succumbed to his injuries at Jorhat Medical College & Hospital.
4. It is the further case of the prosecution that the other passengers who were traveling in the said vehicle also received grievous injuries on their person and were also examined at Teok FRU. It is the further allegation of the prosecution that the accused petitioner drove the said City Bus rashly and negligently and the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent act of driving.
5. Accordingly, the case was registered under Sections 279 /338/304(A)/427 IPC . Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and thereafter, the trial of the case commenced.
6. During trial, in order to prove its case, prosecution examined altogether 13 witnesses. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court found the accused petitioner guilty for the offences under Sections 279 /338/304(A)/427 IPC and sentenced accordingly.
7. Being aggrieved, an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 20/2014 was preferred by the accused petitioner before the appellate court and the appellate court after re-appreciating and analyzing the evidence was pleased to uphold the conviction as awarded by the trial court, however, reduced the sentence from 2 years of simple imprisonment under Section 304 (A) of IPC to simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months with fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for another 45 days.
8. Situated thus, the present criminal revision petition has been filed.
9. Mr. R Hazarika, learned counsel for the accused petitioner submits that the evidence on record does not warrant conviction of the accused petitioner and both the two courts erred in law and in facts in convicting the accused petitioner. He further submits that the two courts failed to note the serious contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and as such, the impugned conviction is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the two courts brushed aside the serious discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He further submits that the accused petitioner has not been identified by the PWs as the driver of the alleged offending vehicle (City Bus) and the rash and negligent driving of the accused petitioner has not been proved. He further submits that the PW-6 deposed in his evidence that he has not mentioned the injuries in the medical report. He further submits
