The main legal point established is that when offences arise from the same act, the accused should be punished for one offence only, and the higher offence should take precedence.

The instant revision petition is filed against the judgment and order dated 28.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2012, wherein, the Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar affirmed the judgment and order of sentence dated 27.07.2012, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kanchanpur, North Tripura in Case No. G.R. 145 of 2010, whereby the accused petitioner, namely, Md. Maharam Ali alias Achai, was convicted under Section 279 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer SI for 6 (six) months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer SI for 1 (one) month and further convicted him under Section 337 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer SI for 6 (six) months and a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer SI for 1 (one) month.

2. Heard Mr. S. C. Majumder, learned counsel assisted by Mr. U. K. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. C. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the respondent State.

3. The prosecution story on the basis of which the trial Court convicted the petitioner and the appellate Court upheld the same is as follows:

4. That on 22.07.2010 one Rabindranath Bhowmik of Shibnagar lodged an FIR with the O/C, Kanchanpur P.S. to the effect that on 06.07.2010 his daughter, namely, Bishnupriya Nath Bhowmik was going to Kanchanpur from his house to get private tuition and when she reached near the shop of Naresh Nath at Santipur, a vehicle bearing No. TRO2C-1572 (Canter truck) came from the opposite side in a very high speed, rashly and negligently and dashed his daughter. As a result, his daughter received grievous injuries and she was shifted to Kanchanpur hospital. As her condition was serious; she was referred to RGM Hospital, Kailashahar wherefrom she was again referred by the attending doctor to GB Hospital, Agartala for treatment. It is also stated in the FIR that as the complainant was busy for the treatment of his daughter, there was delay in lodging the FIR.

5. On receipt of the FIR, the O/C Kanchanpur P.S. registered a case being KCP P.S. Case No. 49 of 2010, under Sections 279/337 of the IPC and on completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused, namely, Maharam Ali alias Achai under Sections 279/337 of the IPC.

6. The accused, namely, Maharam Ali alias Achai turned up and contested the case. He was supplied with copies of incriminating papers and on being examined under Section 251 of the Cr.PC., he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses to prove the case and upon closure of prosecution evidence the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.PC to which he denied the veracity of all the prosecution evidence and also declined to adduce any defence evidence. The accused does not have any specific defence case other than total denial of the whole prosecution story.

8. Thereafter, hearing both sides the learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment and convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner namely, Maharam Ali alias Achai as stated supra.

9. Being aggrieved by the decision of the learned trial Court, the accused petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dharmanagar, North Tripura, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2012. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dharmanagar, after hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record, upheld the order of conviction and sentenced passed by the trial Court, dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of the trial Court and directing the accused petitioner to surrender before the learned trial Court within one month from today to serve out the sentence.

10. As the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and directed the petitioner to surrender before the learned trial Court, the accused petitioner preferred the instant revision petition which on being admi