Back
2016 Supreme(Tri) 437
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Sri Santosh Chandra Shil, Son of late Ramani Mohan Shil - Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Tripura - Respondent
CRL. REV. P. NO.14 OF 2015
Decided On : 15-12-2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. A. Acharjee, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. R.C. Debnath, Addl. P.P.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proving rash and negligent driving beyond reasonable doubt, the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor, and the need for reliable evidence to establish criminal culpability in cases of road accidents.
Headnote:
Rash Driving - Criminal Appeal - Section 304-A, Section 279 of the IPC - [304-A, 279] - The court discussed the elements of rash and negligent driving under Section 304-A and Section 279 of the IPC, the standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt' for proving rashness, and the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor. The court also referred to the principles established in Rattan Singh vs. State of Punjab and Ravi Kapur vs. State of Rajasthan to determine criminal culpability in cases of road accidents.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted under Section 304-A of the IPC for causing death by a rash or negligent act and under Section 279 for rash driving. The accident occurred when the vehicle driven by the petitioner collided with another vehicle, resulting in injuries and a fatality.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused for causing the accident due to rash driving, leading to the death of a person. However, the court also acquitted the co-accused, holding that there was no reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the identification of the accused, the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor, and the standard of proof required to establish rash and negligent driving under Section 304-A and Section 279 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the testimonies of the witnesses and the investigating officer were not sufficient to establish the accused's involvement in the accident beyond reasonable doubt. The court applied the principles of res ipsa loquitor and emphasized the need for reliable evidence to prove rash and negligent driving.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned judgment and acquitted the petitioner from the accusation of rash or negligent act under Sections 304-A and 279 of the IPC, granting the petitioner liberty and discharging the sureties.
By this petition, judgment and order dated 04.03.2015 delivered in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2014 by the Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia has been challenged. The judgment and order dated 25.11.2014 as passed by the trial court [the court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Belonia, South Tripura] delivered in case No.PRC 389 of 2011 convicting the petitioner under Section 304-A of the IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6(six) months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for committing the said offence, has been affirmed by the said judgment dated 04.03.2015, the impugned judgment.
2. One Abhiram Das filed an oral ejahar on 10.09.2011 through one Rakesh Jamatia, Sub-Inspector of Police, Santirbazar Police Station disclosing that on 10.09.2011 when he was travelling by the vehicle bearing No.TR-01-4148 [the commander jeep] towards Santirbazar and when the vehicle reached in front of the BSF camp at Bagafa and the vehicle was negotiating a turn, another commander jeep bearing No.TR-01-2039 which was being driven with high speed collided with the said vehicle bearing No.TR-01-4148. For that collision, the informant Abhiram Das received serious injuries and another co-passenger namely Ratan Acharjee died in the spot. When he made the oral ejahar, the informant was being treated in the Santirbazar hospital.
3. Based on the said ejahar, the Officer-in-Charge, Santirbazar Police Station registered the case being STBPS Case No.66 of 2011 under Section 279/304-A of the IPC and made it up for investigation. After investigation, the police filed the final report charge-sheeting the petitioner under Section 279 and 304-A of the IPC. On taking cognizance, the statement of accusation under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. was read out to the petitioner on 08.03.2013 by the trial court stating that he had committed offences punishable under Section 279/304-A of the IPC. The petitioner denied the said accusation and pleaded innocence. As consequence thereof, the prosecution in order to substantiate the said accusation adduced as many as 7(seven) witnesses including the informant [PW6] and the Investigating Officer namely Sri Rakesh Jamatia [PW5]. The defence did not adduce any evidence. But when the petitioner was examined under Section 313 of the IPC, he repeated his plea of innocence. Having appreciated the evidence, the trial court by its judgment dated 25.11.2014 returned the finding of conviction observing as under :
“On going through the deposition of two eye witnesses i.e. deposition of PW3 & 6 which are discussed earlier I find that at the time of accident accused Subal Debnath with his vehicle bearing No. TR-01-4148 (commander jeep) was proceeding towards Santirbazar from Manu and when the vehicle reached near Santir bazaar BSF Camp at that time accused Santosh Shil with his vehicle bearing No. TR 01-2039 by coming from opposite direction dashed the vehicle of Subal. At the time of appreciating the evidence of prosecution witnesses I have carefully perused the hand sketch map which was prepared by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation i.e. document Exbt.2 and on perusal of the said map I find that ‘A’ is shown as place of occurrence and the direction of the vehicle of Subal was from Manu to Santirbazar i.e. from Udaipur to Santirbazar as reflected in the hand sketch map and the direction of accused Santosh was from Santirbazar to Manu. At the time of cross-examination of the Investigating Officer Ld. Defence counsel for the accused Santosh Shil or Ld. Advocate for the accused Subal Debnath did not raise any question regarding place of occurrence i.e. ‘A’ and on perusal of the case record I also did not find any materials to disbelieve the hand sketch map as prepared by the Investigating Officer. Hence, I have no doubt that the hand sketch map which was prepared by the Investigating Officer, he prepared the same considering the a
