Back
2018 Supreme(Tri) 101
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Sri. Patal Debbarma, son of late Mangal Joy Debbarma – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Tripura – Respondent
Crl. Rev. P. No. 06 of 2017
Decided On : 12-04-2018
For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. S. Sarkar, P.P.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish the main attribute of rashness and negligence, particularly in interpreting the meaning of 'high speed' and the absence of statutory exceptions.
Headnote:
Rash and Negligence - Criminal Appeal - Section 397, Section 401 of Cr. P.C. - Sections 279, 338, 304A of IPC - [279, 338, 304A] - The court discussed the evidence related to the accident, the speed of the vehicle, and the prosecution's burden to establish rashness and negligence. It highlighted the interpretation of 'high speed' and the requirement for material to establish rashness or negligence. The court found the evidence inadequate to establish the main attribute of rashness and negligence, leading to the acquittal of the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a petition under Section-397 read with Section-401 of the Cr. P.C. from a judgment and order affirming the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Sections 279/338/304(A) of the IPC for a vehicle accident resulting in the death of a passenger.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence inadequate to establish the main attribute of rashness and negligence, leading to the acquittal of the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish rashness and negligence on the part of the petitioner in the vehicle accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement for material to establish rashness or negligence, particularly in interpreting the meaning of 'high speed' and the absence of statutory exceptions. It found the evidence inadequate to establish the main attribute of rashness and negligence, leading to the acquittal of the petitioner.
Final Decision: The petitioner was acquitted from the charge under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of the IPC.
Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner ass well as Mr. S. Sarkar, learned P.P. appearing for the respondent-State.
2. This is a petition under Section-397 read with Section-401 of the Cr. P.C. from the judgment and order dated 15.02.2017 delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 10(1) of 2016 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur. By the said judgment, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.01.2016, delivered in G.R. 124 of 2013 has been affirmed.
3. The genesis of the prosecution is rooted in the written complaint filed by one Bimal Das on 29.05.2013 revealing that while he and his wife namely Ratna Das by boarding the vehicle bearing registration No. TR01-3351 (commander jeep) was proceeding towards Teliamura, in a place called Taichakma, the said vehicle capsized in a low line along the road, for the reason the vehicle was being driven with high speed. The people from the neighbourhood rushed in and shifted the injured to Ompinagar Hospital and on assessment of the seriousness of the injuries 10/11 persons were referred to GBP Hospital at Agartala.
4. According to the said complaint, for rashness and negligence of the driver, the said accident could occur. In terms of the said complaint, Taidu P.S. case No. 07 of 2013 under Sections 279/338 of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation.
5. One of the injured person, namely Ratna Das succumbed to her injuries and as consequence, Section-304A of the IPC was added subsequently with leave of the Magistrate and investigation was directed towards that offence as well. On 23.09.2013 the final police report under Section-173(2) was received by the Court. Against the petitioner, according to the Investing Officer there were prima facie evidentiary materials.
6. On taking the cognizance of accusation the substance under Section-251 was read to the petitioner charging for committing offence punishable Under Sections 279/338 and 304A of the IPC, to which the petitioner pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried.
7. Too substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses including the Investigating Officer, the doctor who carried out postmortem examination on the deceased passenger and the doctor who assessed the injuries of the persons who fell victim to the said accident. On recording of the evidence of the prosecution, the petitioner was examined under Section-313 of the Cr. P.C. on 11.12.2015 for having his response to the incriminating materials, when he reiterated his plea of innocence.
8. Thereafter, the trial judge, the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Amarpur, Gomati Tripura by the judgment dated 30.01.20116 (in G.R. Case No. 124 of 2013) returned the finding of conviction against the accused-petitioner under Sections 279/338/304(A) of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I for 2 years under Section-304(A) of the IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/in default to suffer SI for 20 days. But no separate sentence was handed down on considering the common ingredients in the other offences as committed.
9. The petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.01.2016 preferred an appeal under Section-374(3) Cr.P.C. in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur being Crl. A. No. 10 (1) of 2016. By the impugned judgment and order dated 15.02.2016 the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in whose court the matter was transferred for hearing thee appeal in accordance with law, has affirmed the judgment of the trial court on observing inter alia:
“The driver was running the vehicle at an excessive speed as stated by PW-20 at the relevant time of accident and as a result of the same, the driver lost the control over it and the vehicle got capsized by the side of the road. Apart from this, after going through the seizure list (Exhibit-33) in respect of seizure of the vehicle bearing No. TR-01-3351 by the IO in presence of witnes
