Back
2014 Supreme(Tri) 264
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
S.C. Das, J.
Sudip Das - Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura - Respondent
Crl. Rev. P. No. 19 of 2012Decided On : 09-07-2014
For the Petitioner:H.K. Bhowmik, Advocate.
For the Respondents: A. Ghosh, P.P.
The requirement to prove rash and negligent driving for conviction under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC.
Headnote:
Revisional Application - Criminal Law - Sections 279, 304A of IPC - Summary: The court discussed the evidence and materials on record to conclude that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. It highlighted the requirement to prove rash and negligent driving for conviction under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC, and emphasized the absence of specific evidence of rash or negligent driving in the case.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC for a road accident resulting in the death of a woman. The accused filed a revisional application challenging the conviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt and that there was no specific evidence of rash or negligent driving by the accused.
Issues: The key issue was whether the accused was driving rashly or negligently, leading to the accident and the woman's death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement to prove rash and negligent driving for conviction under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and held that the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused in the absence of specific evidence of rash or negligent driving.
Final Decision: The revisional application was allowed, and the accused was acquitted on the benefit of doubt.
JUDGMENT
S.C. Das, J.1. This revisional application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC is directed against judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26.03.2012 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. Criminal Appeal 35(3) of 2011, whereunder the learned Addl. Sessions Judge upheld the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.08.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 4, Agartala, West Tripura in case No. PRC 406 of 2010.
Learned Magistrate found the accused petitioner guilty of committing offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and sentenced him to suffer RI for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to suffer SI for five days for commission of offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC and again to suffer RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer SI for ten days under Section 304A of IPC. In the appeal, learned Addl. Sessions Judge upheld the judgment and order of conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal and, hence, this revisional application.
2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. H.K. Bhowmik for the petitioner and learned P.P., Mr. A. Ghosh for the State respondent.
3. It is submitted by Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel that the accused petitioner has been wrongly and falsely implicated in the case, which is evident from the FIR and the statement of PW7, i.e. the informant of the case. In the FIR it was clearly mentioned that TR-01-H-5112, a Pulsar motor bike was involved in the accident, but subsequently, in the evidence PW7 has stated that he lodged a second FIR on 29.04.2010 where he mentioned that the motor bike was having with registration number--TR-01-H-7272. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner has been subsequently implicated in the case with a false allegation that he committed the accident of motor bike and therefore the mother of the informant Bijli Baruah received injury and died. It is also submitted by Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel that there is no iota of evidence that the petitioner was riding the motor bike rashly and negligently to arrive at a conclusion that the offence committed is punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC.
4. Learned P.P., Mr. Ghosh, with all his fairness, has submitted that in the FIR lodged on 18.04.2010, on the basis of which police started investigation, the number of offending motor bike was mentioned as TR-01-H-5112 but subsequently the informant submitted a petition stating the number of the offending vehicle as TR-01-H-7272, and therefore the police started investigation against the rider of that motor bike and it was found that Sudip Das, the accused petitioner was the man in the steering of the motor bike and the accident was committed. It is, however, admitted by learned P.P. that all the witnesses stated that the accident occurred when the victim woman suddenly was trying to cross the road and there was no specific evidence that the motor bike was running rashly and negligently.
5. I have carefully gone through the evidence and materials on record. The accident occurred on 18.04.2010 at 7.00 pm on Jail Ashram Road at Dhaleswar. It is one of the busiest roads of Agartala city. The FIR was lodged by Amit Barua, PW7 in writing on 25.04.2010 at 1110 hrs. alleging that on 18.04.2010 at 7.00 pm his mother Smt. Bijli Barua was passing through Jail Ashram Road near the house of Dr. Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and at that time a motor bike(Pulsar) bearing registration No. TR-01-H-5112 knocked down his mother coming from backside and, as a result his mother sustained grievous injury and she was thereafter taken to G.B. Hospital where she died on that night itself. Admittedly, in the FIR, which is proved as Exbt. 6, the informant, i.e. PW7 stated nothing as to from whom he came to learn about the number of the vehicle. However, police registered the case on the basis of the FIR lodged
